UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Idealized intimacy, openness in communication, and coping efforts : predictors of marital satisfaction Afshar, Noushine 1996

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_1996-0576.pdf [ 6.77MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0054052.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054052+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054052.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054052+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054052+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054052+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0054052 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0054052.txt
Citation
1.0054052.ris

Full Text

IDEALIZED COPING  INTIMACY,  EFFORTS  :  OPENNESS  PREDICTORS  IN  COMMUNICATION, AND  OF MARITAL  SATISFACTION  by NOUSHINE AFSHAR B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1992  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology)  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1996 (c) Noushine Afshar, 1996  In  presenting  degree  at the  this  thesis  in partial  University of  freely available for reference copying  of this thesis  department  or  by  fulfilment of  British Columbia,  or  publication of this thesis  her  representatives.  CoUrjSCLLIHG  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2788)  I agree that the  for  an  may be granted It  is  advanced  Library shall make it by the  understood  that  extensive  head  of my  copying  or  for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written  permission.  Department of  requirements  and study. I further agree that permission for  for scholarly purposes  his  the  0t£i>4*A-. I0. i-  :  IWL  PSYCHOLOGY  11  ABSTRACT  The purpose of t h i s study was first-time  married,  satisfaction  couples,  three  key  efforts.  ideal  Despite  exists  contribution  and  on  to  the  emotional  their  marital  whether  intimacy);  of  satisfaction.  and  positive  compare  to the f o l l o w i n g measures:  (KMSS), Communication Scale, Personal Assessment of  all  and  participants,  disclosure,  and  satisfaction. were  (PAIR),  Marital  discrepant positive  emotional  satisfaction  (accounting  compared  to  in  (MCI).  For  intimacy,  jointly  self-  contributed  to  self-disclosure  for greater  positive  Scale  Intimacy  Inventory  However, discrepant intimacy and  stronger p r e d i c t o r s  marital  Coping  coping  each  multiple regression  Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), Kansas M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n  Relationships  little  each v a r i a b l e ' s  To  v a r i a b l e ' s p r e d i c t i v e strength, simultaneous  in  (difference  i n marriage,  strength  analyses were performed on responses  marital  openness  intimacy  importance  relative  nonclinical,  variables:  ( s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ) ; discrepant  between p e r c e i v e d  research  heterosexual  i s p r e d i c t e d by  communication  coping  to examine, w i t h i n 60  variance)  of  Results  of  coping.  analyses f o r husbands' and wives' data a l s o y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t , moderate, negative c o r r e l a t i o n s between discrepant marital  satisfaction  disclosure. for  future  discussed.  and  between discrepant intimacy  L i m i t a t i o n s of research,  intimacy  and  this  study's  implications  findings, for  and  and  self-  suggestions  counselling  are  iii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Abstract  i i  Table of Contents  i i i  L i s t of Tables  vi  Acknowledgements  vii  Dedi cat i o n  viii  CHAPTER  I  :  CHAPTER  II  INTRODUCTION :  LITERATURE  1 REVIEW  5  Openness i n Communication  5  Intimacy  10  Coping E f f o r t s  18  Interrelationships  Among the Key V a r i a b l e s  Communication and Intimacy  26  Communication and Coping  28  Intimacy and Coping  30  C o n s i d e r a t i o n of Demographic V a r i a b l e s CHAPTER  25  III  Hypotheses  :  31  METHOD  37  and Exploratory Research Questions  37  Participants  40  Procedure  42  Data C o l l e c t i o n  42  Recruitment  43  Measures Dyadic Adjustment  46 Scale  (DAS)  Kansas M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale Communication Scale  47 (KMSS)  53 .56  iv  CHAPTER  PAIR Inventory  60  M a r i t a l Coping Inventory. (MCI)  64  Data A n a l y s i s  69  IV  :  RESULTS  73  C r e a t i n g a S i n g l e Index f o r M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n  73  Comparison of Local to "Out of Town" Couples...  74  D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s f o r the V a r i a b l e s  75  Normality Assumption  77  R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between V a r i a b l e s  79  Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t C o r r e l a t i o n s  82  Husbands' S i g n i f i c a n t C o r r e l a t i o n s  83  M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses  86  Wives' M u l t i p l e Regressions  87  Husbands' M u l t i p l e Regressions  89  M u l t i p l e Regressions With Demographic V a r i a b l e s . . . . . 91 Post Hoc M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses  93  Test R e l i a b i l i t y Analyses  95  Summary of Supported Hypotheses  97  CHAPTER  V  :  DISCUSSION  100  P r e d i c t o r s of M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n  .100  C o r r e l a t e s of M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n  105  C o r r e l a t e s of Perceived Intimacy  I l l  C o r r e l a t e s of P o s i t i v e Coping  116  C o r r e l a t e s of the Discrepancy Intimacy V a r i a b l e  117  P o s s i b l e L i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s Study  120  Implications  126  f o r Research and C o u n s e l l i n g  V  REFERENCES APPENDIX  A  130 : Approval  of the Behavioural  Screening Involving APPENDIX  \  B  Committee Human  : Demographics  Sciences  f o r Research  Subjects  Questionnaire  148 149  vi  LIST  OF  TABLES  Table 1. Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s husbands' responses  f o r wives'  and  (ri - 54)  76  Table 2. C o r r e l a t i o n matrix f o r wives' responses on  key  variables  80  Table 3. C o r r e l a t i o n matrix f o r husbands' responses on  key  variables  81  Table 4. J o i n t and separate c o n t r i b u t i o n s  of each v a r i a b l e . . . . 86  Table 5. Beta, t, and p r o b a b i l i t y values f o r each of the predictors  i n j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to wives'  marital satisfaction  87  Table 6. Beta, t, and p r o b a b i l i t y values f o r each of the p r e d i c t o r s i n j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to husbands' marital satisfaction Table 7. Adjusted R-Squared values, separate  89 contributions  (beyond the three p r e d i c t o r s ' combined c o n t r i b u t i o n ) , Beta, and s i g n i f i c a n c e of demographic v a r i a b l e s  92  Table 8. Beta, t, and p f o r each p r e d i c t o r i n the j o i n t contribution discrepant  (using perceived i n s t e a d of  intimacy)  94  Vll  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  This d i s s e r t a t i o n would not have been p o s s i b l e without time and e f f o r t of the couples  i n the study.  the  I would l i k e  to  thank them f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n and i n t e r e s t i n my r e s e a r c h . I would (Robert  also  like  Conry and  to thank the members on  John Friesen) f o r t h e i r  comments, help and support. Conry's  I  am  I  am  I am e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l  f o r Robert  to my  addition,  emotional  supervisor  grateful  encouragement throughout In  analyses of the  data  (Beth Haverkamp)  for  her  of knowledge, guidance, and suggestions i n e d i t i n g .  particularly  least,  insightful  abilities.  indebted  contribution  committee  feedback,  suggestions during the s t a t i s t i c a l  and h i s f a i t h i n my  the  support  for  her  support,  and  the d i s s e r t a t i o n process.  I would  like  to thank my  friends  ( e s p e c i a l l y Katerina and Ross).  I would l i k e  kindness,  to extend  my  sincere  Johanna f o r a l l that she has done f o r me.  thanks  for their  Last but not to my  Auntie  Vlll DEDICATION  I parents  consider (Paulina  b e l i e v e d i n me. spirits  myself and  and  a  supportive,  brother  caring  (Houman)  who my  during the most c h a l l e n g i n g times.  grandmother  Although  Khosrow)  to have  T h e i r words of encouragement and hugs l i f t e d  My grandfather My  fortunate  (Pappie) has taught me optimism and courage.  (Mamani) has  taught  they are not with me,  me  warmth  they w i l l  and  generosity.  always h o l d a  special  p l a c e i n my heart. I special  also  feel  man  blessed  to  (Anoushiravan  be  married  Dadgar)  encouragement are g r e a t l y appreciated. love and acceptance of who  I am,  to  a  wonderful  whose  patience  Above a l l , my  gave me  and and  husband's  the s t r e n g t h to begin  and complete t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . I  dedicate  this  t h e s i s to my  brother,  and  grandparents.  pursuits  and  serving  psychology.  humanity  I  beloved  dedicate in  the  husband,  myself field  of  to  parents, academic  counselling  1 Chapter  I  Introduction  Marriage Canadians  remains  as  popular  as  ever.  The  (more than 85%) marry at l e a s t once  of the Family  [VIF] , 1990).  majority  of  (Vanier I n s t i t u t e  In 1990, more Canadians  (63%) were  l e g a l l y married or l i v i n g common-law compared to 1921, when 58% were l e g a l l y married  (VIF, 1990).  Furthermore,  the  number of  common-law couples more than doubled i n the p e r i o d between  1981  and 1991 as the number of c u r r e n t l y married couples i n c r e a s e d by 8%  (Barr  in  Statistics  sociopolitical  factors  Canada, (such  Conscription  Crisis  and  r a t e appears  to have had  1993) .  as  World  fluctuating  today  The and  years  difference first  (VIF,  several peaks and  i s that  most  time marriages  1990) .  II,  various the  the  troughs  1942  marriage  since  1921;  the same r a t e as 75 years marriages  are  have d e c l i n e d over  Also, over  r a t e s have increased.  War  to  job markets)  however, people are marrying at about ago.  Due  the past  two  remarriages the  last  decades,  divorce  In 1971, the annual d i v o r c e r a t e was  per 1000 p o p u l a t i o n but i n 1991 the d i v o r c e r a t e doubled to per  1000  population  Moreover,  projections  entered  into  today  (Barr suggest  will  end  in  Statistics  that  up  i n divorce  to  Canada, 40%  (VIF,  of  40  1.4 2.8  1993). marriages  1990) .  These  reported marriage and divorce rates may be underestimates of the number of opposite sex couples being formed i n Canada as they do not account  f o r common-law unions.  Nevertheless, they present  an approximation of the trend i n marriage and d i v o r c e .  2 Given today's high divorce rate and i n c r e a s e i n remarriage rates,  therapists,  counsellors,  p s y c h o l o g i s t s and  clergy  become more concerned about couples' p r e p a r a t i o n f o r and to  sustain  articles  a marital  relationship.  have been produced  to o f f e r  r e l a t e to and behave toward highs  chools  teach  f u t u r e spouses  enrichment  and  programs help  r e l a t i o n s h i p and marriage  p l e t h o r a of  spouses  each other.  postsecondary how  A  have  ability  books  advice on  and  how  to  F a m i l y - l i f e courses i n  institutions  are  designed  to  to improve  communication.  Marriage-  couples  enhance  of  to  aspects  counseling continues to be a  their  thriving  profession. Apart importance  from  of m a r i t a l  research  on  devoting  their  to m a r i t a l years,  the abovementioned p r o f e s s i o n a l success has  marriage.  Some  also  social  research to measuring  "adjustment"  numerous  and  instruments  marital satisfaction,  have  the  prompted  the  scientists  are  currently  success  according  marital  marital  endeavors, growth  "satisfaction." been  developed  Over to  i n terms of amount of c o n f l i c t ,  of  Furthermore, of  success  marital  degree  or f a i l u r e factors  marriage  as  possible  believe  that  1988)  .  such  these as  i n marriage such  as  and  income,  predictors.  factors  are  communication  less  have  and .  predictors  considered v a r i o u s  education,  However,  of  1988)  (Fitzpatrick,  s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have been i n t r i g u e d by  demographic  factors,  quality  the  measure  agreement, shared a c t i v i t i e s , personal r a t i n g s of happiness, evaluations  of  and  age  researchers  important  between couples  than  at  today  relational  (Fitzpatrick,  3 In any  case, p r o f e s s i o n a l helpers are faced w i t h two  challenges.  The  first  challenge  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between couples more l i k e l y their  to abide by  marriages.  challenge  to  the commitments and  The  challenges, counseling  marital  second,  and  professional  improvement  helpers  which  they  more  of m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s In  order  are  involve  to  set  predictor useful  used of  during  these  conflict.  could  meet  these  employing  exploration  efficiency,  change during counseling.  not  than  conflict,  been found  1970) .  of  is  and  Clinebell,  complicated  that  to measure because  intimacy  by  individuals  s a t i s f a c t i o n may  (Strong, 1970).  the great may  and  the  coping  stronger would  be  promotion  of  S a t i s f a c t i o n would be a more v a l u a b l e  depending on how  even f a c i l i t a t e Clinebell  accuracy,  as a block to intimacy  Rather,  the  v a r i a b l e s of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n  f o r maximizing  factor,  Identifying  in  which  couple's i s s u e s p e r t a i n i n g to communication, intimacy, or strategies  be  important,  typically  an  of  they w i l l  goals  perhaps  dissolution.  procedures  the  so that, as spouses,  i s the minimization  contribute  is  major  conflict  (Clinebell  &  i t i s resolved, 1975;  itself  Bach and  Clinebell,  conflict Wyden,  Also, measurement of  variety  experience.  i n sources For  these  of  has  can 1975;  conflict  frustration  reasons,  marital  be a b e t t e r dependent v a r i a b l e to measure along  with intimacy, coping e f f o r t s and openness i n communication.  In  any  as  event,  important each of unclear.  even  factors the  though  these  i n marriage,  variables  are  the comparative  recognized extent  to which  p r e d i c t o r s contributes to m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n  is  4 Although  the r e l a t i o n s between the three v a r i a b l e s have not  been c o n c u r r e n t l y and e m p i r i c a l l y studied, s e v e r a l w r i t e r s have attempted Amidon, (1989)  & Bernt, captured  intimacy, "being  t o describe  1991; Gottman  1989).  Lerner  has  between  the development of  communication and coping  behavior  by suggesting  we  expectations "allowing  are" demands  and  the  emotionally  the p o s s i b l e  & Krokoff,  (Merves-Okin,  link  who  him/her.  some of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  take  a  other  connected  that  stand  person  we on  to  do  to the person  talk  openly  important the without  about  issues  same"  that  by  trying  our while  staying  t o change  L e r n e r s ideas may be adapted t o d e f i n e communication, 1  intimacy and coping w i t h i n an i n t e g r a t e d context  such that one  can a p p r e c i a t e t h e i r j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . However,  this  understanding  can  be  achieved  only  of the background, concepts,  after  one  has  an  t h e o r i e s and research  f i n d i n g s f o r each of the key v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e d . Marital perspective husbands'  satisfaction or  from  and wives'  an  can  be  studied  individualistic  individual  from  a  perspective.  perceptions,  this  study  dyadic Using will  explore the l i n k s between m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and the v a r i a b l e s of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , p o s i t i v e coping, and discrepancy to e l u c i d a t e the extent  i n intimacy  of the c o n t r i b u t i o n that each v a r i a b l e  o f f e r s to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n .  5 Chapter  II  Literature  The  following  literature  Review  review w i l l  separately  summarize  some key research f i n d i n g s and concepts a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each of the f o l l o w i n g : openness i n communication  (i.e. self-disclosure),  intimacy, and coping e f f o r t s .  Openness  i n Communication  Communication has been defined as the t r a n s a c t i o n a l process of  creating  and  transmitting  sharing  messages  transactional  meanings  (Galvin because  or  Brommel,  n o n v e r b a l l y by  1991).  It  is  who  communicate  impact on each other; partners a f f e c t  and  are a f f e c t e d by  each  Communication  also  (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967)  implies  mutuality  meanings. messages  If will  communication  in  the  meanings not  be  process are  not  of  creating  mutually  understood.  and  have  a  people  other  process  &  verbally  sharing  understood,  Therefore,  an  then  successful  depends on the partners' shared r e a l i t y or sets of  meanings (Bochner & Eisenberg, 1987). Each couple creates a worldview of assumptions  to organize  shared b e l i e f s , expectations and meanings (Reiss, 1981; 1986;  Brighton-Cleghorn, 1987) .  each  young  couple  accomodation  where  must the  go  Minuchin  through  partners  the  develop  (1974)  suggests  process ways  Stephen,  in  of which  that  mutual each  spouse t r i g g e r s and observes the other's behavior and i s i n turn i n f l u e n c e d by  the previous p a t t e r n  of behaviors.  Eventually,  6 these  " t r a n s a c t i o n a l patterns"  demands that  regulate  create  behaviors.  couple must negotiate  a frame of complementary  To form a m a r i t a l  system, a  a set of shared meanings and expectations  through mutual accomodation so that the meanings f o r one spouse then become a s s o c i a t e d with the meanings f o r the other Brommel,  1991) .  coordinated  may  strive  i n their  some  backgrounds  generalized  common  i s important f o r coordinated  a r e general  processes,  meanings  this  because  In any case,  less  communication  e f f e c t s of communication breakdown may i n v o l v e  serious  misunderstandings  that  partners  might,  to  explore  and mistaken  f o r example, the  avoid  subject,  or  living  assumptions  a subject, one  may  such  resist  make  a t t r i b u t i o n s because he/she i s unaware of a d i f f i c u l t y faces.  create  meanings.  with  attempt  to  I f there  and s o c i a l  n e g o t i a t i o n of meanings i s needed.  The  f o r years  mutually meaningful language.  similarities assures  Couples  (Galvin &  an  faulty  the other  D a i l y m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n r a t i n g s given by couples have  been h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with d a i l y d i s p l e a s i n g communication such as  complaining,  (Jacobson,  Waldron,  communication most  commanding &  has o f t e n  frequently  or  Moore, been  experienced  interrupting 1980).  conversation  Above  identified and most  a  all,  by t h e r a p i s t s common  poor  as the  problem  facing  couples i n m a r i t a l therapy (Geiss & O'Leary, 1981). In  committed  characteristics two  people  that  and  close  relationships,  can show c o o r d i n a t i o n  i s openness  (Altman  &  Taylor,  implies v e r b a l and nonverbal a c c e s s i b i l i t y  one  of meanings 1973) .  of  the  between Openness  to each other.  The  7 individual's  ability  communication openness.  in  to move  an  easy  However,  interactions  are  manner  more  also  i n and  out  is  of  one  importantly  areas  of  characterization  of  in  characteristic  private  marriage,  of  intimate  openness.  When  personal, p r i v a t e information i s expressed or r e c e i v e d , openness occurs so meanings can be (Montgomery,  1981) .  interchange with mechanical  . Humans are  their  systems  effectively  break  encountered,  human  systems  people  ideas  to  and  functional develop  (Walsh,  open  surrounding  will  1985).  stated  if  the  in  to  another human...It  human experiences"  and a  with  other  Malone and  simultaneous and  (1987)  profound opening  up  courageous of of  communication which can c o n t r i b u t e g r e a t l y to the foundation  of  receiving voluntarily  Such  openness  self-disclosure, tells  another  the other i s unable Sharp,  1973).  information  is  or  openness  can  aspect  intimacy.  Hence,  are  relationship  i s the most meaningful  (p.20).  closed  psychologially  powerful  awareness of ourselves occurs with our  for  substances  Malone and  most  allow  While  new  physically  "The  that  interchange  Rigidness  that,  relationship  environments.  i n the absence of openness.  eloquently  in a  systems  down  need  remain  shared  experienced which  through  occurs  when  involves  feelings  sharing one  from  a  willingness  another.  manner to  It also  and  person  things about himself or h e r s e l f  to d i s c e r n i n a d i f f e r e n t  This  i s an  that  (Pearce  accept  allows  one  &  such to  reduce u n c e r t a i n t y about the d i s c l o s e r ' s p e r s o n a l i t y i n terms of similarity, 1982) .  competence  and  believability  (Berger  &  Bradac,  8 Gilbert her  (1976) has  finding  that  linked  high  mutual  a s s o c i a t e d with voluntary and  affection.  may  occur  anger.  in  self-disclosure  relationships  nonvoluntary  at  findings,  (1968) view the  relationships  a  communication  important  is  i f one  usually by  receiving  (1971)  and  for  (1967)  counselling  self-disclosure  for  than  socioeconomic status,  and  one  marital  where each  relational  self-disclosure  However, t h i s l i n e a r view may have  high  in  couples  reported  less  matched  for  number of  popular (Galvin,  occur i n only s p e c i a l and  are  children.  development  and  communication  self-esteem  feelings,  typically,  couples  programs  quality  follow.  impetus f o r the  enrichment  that  will  difficulties  marriage duration and  to  Jackson  (1972) b e l i e v e d  that,  non-counselling  marriage  partners  as  and  rejection  found  between  contrast  Lederer  Satir  and  self-disclosure  sharp  determining  Such l a t t e r reports have been the  which support  and  reserve.  helplessness  Senn  current  a  trust  conflict  does not p r o p e r l y communicate personal  isolation,  Levinger-  As  in  self-disclosure  showing  optimal marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p without  that  point.  Jourard  partner discloses  both  is  characterized  s a t i s f a c t i o n where increased  satisfaction  Gilbert's  many  intimacy  Thus G i l b e r t suggests a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p  reduces  then  and  However, high l e v e l s of negative  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and  and  self-disclosure  of  books 1985) .  cases where  willing  to  risk  commitment to the marriage ( G i l b e r t , 1976) . Much of  the  research i n s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  through questionnaires and since  the  actual  self-reports  self-disclosing  has  been conducted  collected  behavior  is  from  couples,  not  easily  9 observed. of  In  1989,  research  in  L i t t l e j o h n summarized  self-disclosure  as  some of  follows:  i n c r e a s e s with increased r e l a t i o n a l intimacy; be  higher d i s c l o s e r s  have  a  than men;  curvilinear  (3)  (1)  that  intimacy as feelings  such  1991).  c l e a r l y shared and  that  between:  wives, and  Senn  than  disclosed obtained  have  a  positive  1981,  by  (1967) found that  Burke,  studies  underscore  Barnes,  Bollman,  value  Jurick,  husbands  &  in  of  disclosed couples  findings  1976.  In  "selective  Bugaighis,  disclosure"  1987;  Sillars,  disclosure  of  been  relate  marital  to  relational  satisfaction  perhaps m a r i t a l it  satisfaction  shows the  (Sillars  or et  may  l i s t e n e r that  ( F i t z p a t r i c k , 1987).  of  marriage  can  be  the  not  be  is  to  by  trust, openness  negatively  In  any  rewarding  with case,  because  trust  s h a r i n g and in  a high  linked  speaker i s w i l l i n g to  Thus the  fostered  found  a l . , 1987).  openness i n communication  share a  has  were  contrast,  In support of t h i s ,  feelings  and  satisfaction.  unsatisfied Similar  Harrison  the  of  or  positive  Weisberg, Burggraf, & Wilson, 1987) . negative  on  Brommel,  show a  marital  Yet,  feelings. and  &  s a t i s f i e d couples  couples.  Weir,  effect  Galvin  self-disclosures  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and  unpleasant  consistently  accepted personal i n f o r m a t i o n  (Hendrick,  the  unsatisfied more  (Schumm,  1)  between 2)  Levinger and  recent  intimacy  relational  disclosure.  According to F i t z p a t r i c k (1987), studies  correlation  more  can  to  disclosure  s a t i s f a c t i o n , studies  self-disclosure  enhance  disclosure  (2) women tend  s a t i s f a c t i o n i s greatest at moderate l e v e l s of  suggest  findings  s a t i s f a c t i o n and  relationship  With regards to m a r i t a l  the  and  growth  communication.  10 However,  openness has  central  to  the  relationship;  not  yet  been  development  established  of  a  the  satisfying  i t i s a f a c t o r among several  intimacy and  as  factor  committed  other f a c t o r s  such  as  f u l f i l l m e n t of r o l e expectations.  Intimacy The  marital  intimacy.  research l i t e r a t u r e i s flooded w i t h s t u d i e s  Given  precipitated  the  by  marriage  notions  of  and  family  enrichment  "human p o t e n t i a l "  and  movement,  "growth,"  growing awareness of the importance and value of intimacy i n culture  has  despite  the  marriage,  developed view  few  empirically writers  (Schaefer  that  have  intimacy  tried  to  (1953) have  as  Bowlby  described  Many  people  intimacy can difficult In  significance  thought and  found  such  incorporated  words into  to d e f i n e or e m p i r i c a l l y the  l i t e r a t u r e on  been suggested.  operationalize,  of an  (1950)  intimacy intimate  affection  of  existence from the c r a d l e to the  have be  characteristic  In 1980,  beliefs;  four  to  be  test  intimacy,  to  humans.  relationship another"  grave"  true;  theory and  (p.19) .  however,  practice  2)  sexuality  several  sharing p r i v a t e  with  an  is  how  has  been  definitions  have  (Gruen, 1964) .  Waring, Tillman,  themes: 1)  or  Sullivan  Frelick, Russell  Weisz asked a group of people what intimacy meant to them. identified  of  and  i n the  "crux of our  However,  Erikson  where one the  our  Historically,  (1965), e s t a b l i s h i n g  "exists  ideal  a  relationships.  In A n g y a l s words 1  1981) .  conceptualize,  (1958),  the  Olson,  i s an  analyze i t s impact on  such  &  on  emphasis  thoughts, dreams on  commitment  and They and and  11 a f f e c t i o n ; 3) having a s t a b l e sense of s e l f - i d e n t i t y ; and 4) the absence  of anger,  factors  are  resentment  also  characteristics  noted  and c r i t i c i s m .  in  of intimacy:  Some  Feldman's  (1979)  1) a close,  familiar  of  these  notion  of  and u s u a l l y  a f f e c t i o n a t e or l o v i n g personal r e l a t i o n s h i p ; 2) a d e t a i l e d and deep  knowledge  familiar Waring,  and understanding  experience; McElrath,  composite Cohesion;  of  couple.  and 3) sexual  Mitchell,  eight  and Derry  qualitative  5)  Conflict  later,  Then,  in  1981,  intimacy  1)  or  as a  Affection;  2)  f e e l i n g s and a t t i t u d e s ; 4)  resolution  Kolodny,  connection  defined  aspects:  6) S e x u a l i t y ; 7) Autonomy; A year  personal  relations.  3) Expression of thoughts,  Compatibility; criticism;  from  without  arguments  or  and 8) I d e n t i t y of the  Masters  and Johnson  (1982)  d e f i n e d intimacy as a "close, t r u s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between two people other  who are both i n spite  partners boundaries continue  willing  of the r i s k s  usually  reach  under  a  an  mutually  Wynne  subjective  relational  trusting  communicated  and Wynne  early  understanding  agreeable (1986)  experience  self-disclosure empathy.  open with  that may be i n v o l v e d .  of t h e i r closeness, p e r m i t t i n g t h e i r  (p.236) .  are  to be emotionally  set  defined  i n which to  which  A key component  each  Intimate about  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p to  of  expectations"  intimacy the core the  as  : "a  components  response  is  i s the w i l l i n g n e s s to  share, v e r b a l l y and non-verbally, a c t i o n s , p o s i t i v e or negative, with  the expectation  and t r u s t  that  the other  person  will  emotionally comprehend, accept what has been revealed, and w i l l not betray or e x p l o i t t h i s t r u s t "  (1986, p. 384-5) .  12 In 1989, be who the  Lerner i d e n t i f i e d intimacy as meaning "that we  we are i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p and allow the other person  same."  The  most  extensive  conceptual  intimacy as "a mutual need s a t i s f a c t i o n " 1970)  and a closeness to another  (Dahms,  1972).  including  Clinebell  the  aesthetic;  following  creative;  commitment;  spiritual;  and  view  (Clinebell & Clinebell, on  Clinebell  view  components:  recreational;  to do  definitions  human being  and  can  levels  intimacy  sexual;  work;  communication  several  as  emotional;  crisis;  conflict;  intimacy.  Some  may  argue that t h i s embodies a "shot gun approach" which attempts to i d e n t i f y f a c e t s of intimacy without o f f e r i n g conceptual Dahms  (1972) proposes that intimacy  hierarchy  of  emotional.  three  dimensions:  i n v o l v e s a more  intellectual,  conceptual  physical,  to view  current who  i t as  definition  a of  self  in  intrapersonal discloser's relationship  the  and  process. intimacy  views intimacy as  one's  and  Moreover, he views intimacy as being c h a r a c t e r i z e d  by mutual a c c e s s i b i l i t y , naturalness, non-possessiveness need  clarity.  An  alternative  i s o f f e r e d by  the experience  presence  of  with  the  with  the  the  self.  example  Schnarch  the of  partner that  partner  as  part  of  i n v o l v e s both  as  well  Unfortunately,  this  as  a  (1991),  of c o n f r o n t i n g aspects  i n t e r p e r s o n a l process  relationship  and  of an the  his/her  conceptual  d e f i n i t i o n of intimacy has not yet been f u l l y o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d or e m p i r i c a l l y measured. Alternatively, intimacy (while  which  being  best  perhaps  the  integrates  empirically  tested)  conceptual  some is  of  the  definition above  o f f e r e d by  of  approaches  Schaefer  and  1 3 Olson on  (1981) .  Olson's  T h e i r o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of intimacy i s based  previous  developed  a  intimacy,  measure  social  intimacy,  work.  and  of  Schaefer five  intimacy,  recreational  areas  and of  sexual  Olson  intimacy:  intimacy/  intimacy,  known  as  Schaefer and Olson's measure  closely  disclosure.  For example,  with  s t u d i e s suggested  reciprocity intimate  disclosure  that  intimacy  occurs  scales  but they that  outcome  experiences disclosure  as  i s reflected  equate  Jourard's  (1964,  personal  1970) i n c l u d e s mutual  and  so  (Altman  that  relationships.  willingness  do not i n d i c a t e  the  typical Hence,  (Jourard, 1971; T a y l o r & Altman,  i s experienced. of  self-  (1975)  "the act of r e v e a l i n g  i n marital  disclosure i t should  & Haythorn,  of be  to d i s c l o s e  the k i n d  Intimacy  topics  and  distinguished  intimate  which i s  sharing  self-  & Olson,  1981).  (1973) have  self-disclosure  r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t i s f a c t i o n may be c u r v i l i n e a r .  of  from  (1976) and Cozby between  1966)  or frequency of  i s a process  1965; Schaefer  the r e l a t i o n s h i p  with self-  intimacy w i t h  In a d d i t i o n ,  Concurring with t h i s view, G i l b e r t suggested  such  and C h a i k i n  (Jourard & J a f f e e ,  t o measure respondents'  feelings,  intimacy  (Jourard & Richman, 1963); and that the most  self-disclosure tend  Derlega  self-disclosure.  i n f o r m a t i o n to others"  the  (1981) w i l l be used  concepts,  that some research has confused  disclosure.  1971)  but d i s s i m i l a r  Personal  For the purpose  The importance of d e f i n i t i o n a l c l a r i t y  i n the f a c t  intimacy  related  emotional  the  i t i s n e i t h e r too g l o b a l nor does i t confuse  other  have  intellectual  as  Assessment of Intimacy i n R e l a t i o n s h i p s (PAIR). of t h i s paper,  (1981)  Indirect  and  support  14 of  this  p e r s p e c t i v e has been  (1964)  and  Schaefer  appropriateness  suggested  and  rather  (1981)  Olson  than  by C h a i k i n  amount  of  who  and Derlega report  disclosure  may  a s s o c i a t e d with adjustment i n an intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p . such  notions,  partly  on  one cannot  the partner's  nurturing relationship. intimacy you"  among couples  dispute  that  use of communication More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  is:  What  and  intimacy?  question  satisfaction  satisfaction  a  nature  link  primates  1989) .  the  (1968)  among  [people]  been,  involved  between  intimacy  i n this  study  implied  that  also  observed  that  ability  that most people only  t o adapt  over  or  without  some  degree  of  the "happiest  and h e a l t h i e s t  (1976)  of  adjustment  Lowenthal and  Furthermore, Lowenthal and Haven the depth  s t u d i e s have  f i n d i n g s of Harlow's  o f t e n seemed t o be the people  that  between  develop.  close  assertion  question can be  several and  In 1953,  i n one or more  lives  a  With such ideas  relationship  In the past,  humans could not adequately  Haven  person's  depend  t o maintain  t o be explored  of  i n relationships.  with  intimacy,  the  and intimacy.  to  research  does  i s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between openness i n communication  regarding  alluded  Despite  of "I'm aware of  In a d d i t i o n t o the above question, another asked  be  i t can c o n t r i b u t e to  by c a r r y i n g messages  and "I care about you" (Wilkinson,  i n mind, an i n t e r e s t i n g  intimacy  that  intimacy  who were, o r had  relationships" found  support  (p.20). for their  i s correlated  the l i f e s p a n .  They  with  a  concluded  f i n d energy to l i v e independent and s a t i s f y i n g  through  the presence of one or more  s u p p o r t i v e and  15 intimate  dyadic  relationships.  i n t e r v i e w s were conducted that  some  couples  r e l a t i o n s h i p and was  More  in  strength  were  comfortable  had  disparate  perceptions  of  In  whose  congruent,  i n the  have  & Blanton,  perceptions both  more  of  spouses  relationship.  will  (Weishaus & F i e l d ,  the  relationship's  tended  Robinson  to  and  1988).  satisfaction  and  As  the  and  PAIR  the  final  intimacy, 0.30  (Personal Assessment of  scores  on  the  be  more (1993)  Blanton  a process of adapting to  congruent  r e p o r t e d c o r r e l a t i o n s exceeding on  their  1993).  (Robinson  expectations  marriage, which has been found to r e l a t e to m a r i t a l  between  found  met  couples  they  i t was  that the spouse whose needs were not being  e x p l a i n that i f couples go through another,  unstructured  with f i f t e e n couples and  r e s i g n e d but not s a t i s f i e d  contrast,  recently,  support  one  of  the  satisfaction  f o r the  relation (1981)  Shaefer  and  between  'perceived scores'  Intimacy  i n Relationships)  Locke-Wallace  Marital  Olson  Adjustment  Scale  (which i s a measure of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n ) f o r a l l of the PAIR subscales except to  suggest  f o r the S p i r i t u a l  that a  link  exists  subscale.  between  Such s t u d i e s seem  degree  of  intimacy  and  satisfaction. Exactly satisfaction that  how  perceived  i s somewhat unclear.  s a t i s f a c t i o n i n marriage  he/she  is  partner.  intimacy  involved  in  an  However,  if  one  will  ideal  An  may  be  linked  interesting  occur  i f one  relationship  experiences  with  suggestion i s p e r c e i v e s that  with  disparity  an  ideal  between  a  p a r t n e r or l e v e l of intimacy that i s i d e a l i z e d and that which i s real,  disappointment  may  occur.  In  vague  support  of  this  16 notion, that  Hall  and  "marriage  joint  Taylor involves  construct  of  e v a l u a t i o n of  the  the  but  marriage,  well."  In  other  validation  what i s hard  to bear.  idealized The  cherished  described  a  only  of  continued for  that,  in a  of  view  an  ideal  internal  could  image that one  of  is  conform  to  fantasy  initiated  may  be  ending..."  a  mate  of  to  him  him  Bagarozzi  model  had  struggle to get  Scarf's view,  at  this  (p. 13-14).  and  Giddings  selection  c o g n i t i v e schema of an  a l s o be  r e f e r r e d to as  the  image but are  the  ideal  1992) .  rather a l a s t i n g  compared  conscious  (Hendrix,  and  standard  evaluated.  or unconscious and spouse and  The  (1983,  and  marital  actual  has  spouse." the  who This  unconscious  programmed one  " i d e a l " i s not  a perfect  c o g n i t i v e matching  greater  spouse,  the  the  match  greater  can  one' s  1986;  ideal  satisfaction.  Lewis & Spanier,  and  perceived  Similarly,  1979).  spouse  may  The  be  i s between  the  person's  s a t i s f a c t i o n w i l l be with h i s / h e r spouse (Anderson, Bagarozzi, Giddings,  to  against which f u t u r e mates  This the  "ideal Imago,  image of the person that one's childhood f a l l i n love with  as  marriage,  i n t e r a c t i o n which suggested that a person w i l l marry someone fits  a  high  survival  one's world  (1987) notes  p o i n t - and lead to a b a t t l e without  1984)  r e a f f i r m a t i o n of  that  not  experiments  as a " r e c o g n i t i o n of the mate's e s s e n t i a l  from the  l i n e with  and  continuance  Scarf  differentness  In  from t h e i r  suggesting  is critical,  f o r the  addition,  desperately  a  reality,  disenchantment occurs  that  (1976) conclude  &  congruence between  contribute  to  marital  the congruence between one's  expected  l e v e l of intimacy and perceived l e v e l of intimacy can  contribute  1 7 to  marital  satisfaction.  identifying assessing ideal  one's the  both  expectations  degree  intimacy  In  and  of  cases,  the  and  ideals  discrepancy  between  perceived  level  of  importance is  noted  an  and  individual's  intimacy may  u s e f u l p r e d i c t o r of s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the  of  be  a more  marriage.  In a d d i t i o n to spouse i d e a l s , one can argue that i d e a l  role  behaviors may  a l s o c o n t r i b u t e to m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n .  Previous  studies  identified  couples,  have  marital  therapy  that  patients  compared  to  experienced  non-patient  more  individual  "role  ideals  role  s t r a i n , " which i s the discrepancy between r o l e behaviors may  not  (Frank,  Anderson,  role  assignments  be  contribute  to m a r i t a l  1980).  & Rubinstein, or  division  satisfaction.  of  Other  and  However, i t  l a b o r per  se  v a r i a b l e s such  open communication of expectations, c o n s t r u c t i v e problem and  i d e a l i z a t i o n of one's r e l a t i o n s h i p may  determining  marital satisfaction.  have d i f f e r e n t  expectations  enact  and  a  role  researchers (i.e.  have  where  found  either  assignments d i f f e r correlate  of  Craddock,  1980;  Nettles  thus  For  example,  that partner  may  feels  each  disturbance  that  Crago  & Loevinger,  &  Tharp,  1983).  (  Bowen  1968;  solving  Li  should  expectations actual  are an  &  may  Furthermore,  the  &  in  couple  partner  marital  from what they would l i k e )  marital  a  ensue.  incongruent  as  be more important  regarding how  conflict  that  role  important  Orthner,  1983;  Caldwell,  1987;  However, i t i s p o s s i b l e that  the  discrepancy i n expectations and c o n f l i c t are not as important  to  marital  by  s a t i s f a c t i o n as how  communicating  their  concerns  the couple r e s o l v e s the c o n f l i c t or how  reassured  each p a r t n e r  is  18 regarding efficacy  the intimacy may  i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  be a p l a u s i b l e  words, m a r i t a l success  explanation  Hence,  for this.  their  intimacy  discrepancies.  i n their  In other  i s not defined as much by the frequency  of r o l e disagreements as i t i s by how couples with  relational  Couples  marriage  and have  who  r e a c t t o and d e a l perceive  constructive  adequate  coping  communication s k i l l s may have l e s s m a r i t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n if  they are experiencing r o l e  role  strain  viewed,  and the i d e a l  potentially  strain.  spouse,  In essence,  perceived  and even  compared to  intimacy  can be  as a more g l o b a l and fundamental p r e d i c t o r  of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n .  Coping  Efforts  Apart  from the concepts  of communication and intimacy, the  variables  of s t r e s s and coping  attention  i n research  for  stress;  been  however,  given  by  have  also  received  and l i t e r a t u r e .  Many  one of the most  popular  (1974),  Selye  who  a  l o t of  definitions  perceives  exist  definitions  has  stress  the  as  n o n s p e c i f i c response of the body to any demand made on i t . The emotions  and arousal  uncomfortable to  respond  Atkinson, manage Lazarus changing  occur  i n response  to  f o r an i n d i v i d u a l and thus motivate  i n a way Smith,  stress  that  that  & Bern,  alleviates 1993).  can be d e f i n e d  and Folkman  (1984)  as coping. defined  c o g n i t i v e and b e h a v i o r a l  the i n d i v i d u a l  the discomfort  The process  have  stress are  by which  More coping  efforts  (Atkinson, people  specifically, as " c o n s t a n t l y  to manage  specific  e x t e r n a l and / or i n t e r n a l demands that are appraised as t a x i n g  19 or  exceeding  accomplished Weber,  the  resources  with  actions,  1994).  applies  to  coping.  Hence,  of  the  person."  feelings  or  coping  i s not  a l l circumstances.  There  Also, there may  be  a  motives single  are  individual  Coping  can  be  (Zimbardo strategy  different  differences  &  that  means  of  i n the ways  that people cope with h a s s l e s , l o s s e s and c h a l l e n g e s . What are some of the ways that people l i f e ' s challenges? to  investigate  measurement  of  typically  This question has motivated many r e s e a r c h e r s and  coping  advance  the  conceptualizations  (Carver,  Scheier,  &  Holahan & Moos, 1987;  Zimbardo & Weber, 1994)  specific  hand,  problem  techniques  or  example, categories  and  coping  the  lessening  the  problem;  Baucom,  Sher,  1983;  (1)  effects  .  viewed  as  have  different  identified  i n marital  distinct  coping  (Filsinger avoidance Krokoff,  & and  behaviors:  Thoma,  1988;  withdrawal  1990);  Thoma, 1988;  functioning  and  (3)  and  (1)  can  conflict  Gottman  (Gottman blaming  be  & and  &  three (2)  problem  but  Alternatively, review  types of behavior patterns that are a s s o c i a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y changes  For  problem;  the  (1991)  Heyman  the  1990).  Bowman,  i t s stress.  and  1989;  Depending on  accepting  of  and  Weintraub,  a t t a c k i n g the  (3)  and  Weiss,  be  (1986)  O'Connor  physical  can  (Wortman,  f o r ways of coping:  rethinking  Sayers,  at  behaviors  Shaver  cope w i t h  three with  conceptualized  and  problem-solving 1989);  Krokoff,  Krokoff,  as  1989;  withdrawal  (2)  Roberts  &  (Filsinger  &  Gottman & Krokoff, 1989).  With regards to measurement of coping, t a r g e t i n g groups that are experiencing the  same type  of  stress  particular might  be  20 more  useful  the  than  "average"  couples that  Pearlin  not  can  be  strategies number  of  (Bowman,  is  1990;  of  Krokoff engagement  three  to  overlap  focus  behavior between  that  presented  are  mostly  parenting  that  certain to  Holmes  marriage  could  has  potentially  problem  from  If  the  have  in  and coping  nonverbal  one assumes  that  identified as  context to  of  these  factors:  factors,  may b e most  methods  behavior  and  conflict  there  sequence  coping  means  Gottman  the  While  or  studies  coping  and observational  of  by  small  marriage  solving,  marital  content  of  Analogous  and avoidance.  aspects  some  study  and wives.  communication  a  in  interaction  (1990)  only  conceptualized  positive  inventories  and l i m i t e d  be  coping  efforts  wives  the  husbands  conflict  and  could  marital  endeavor,  Moreover,  on i n t e r p e r s o n a l  two p e o p l e .  and  Scale,  specific  example,  Bowman's  between  communication  stressors  individuals.  and  that  coping  husbands  For  between  of  research  1982).  between  approach,  married  According  Rating  event  investigated  well.  factors  positive  have  and withdrawal  communication  marital  for  problems.  communication  (1989)  example,  dating  effective.  life  designed  specific  responses  Readjustment  Menaghan,  as  or  that  coping  important  studies  coping  some  found  For  various  single  investigation  an  communication  aspects  the  the  1986).  especially  Social  to health  Although  of  were  by  coping measures  with  by  i d e n t i f i e d as a s t r e s s f u l  contribute  on  cope  (1978)  reduced  (1967)  1  (Wills,  experienced  responses  and Rahe s  general  a n d must  and Schooler  stress  been  individual  encounter  are  coping  u s i n g more  of that  of  appear verbal occur  can generally  be  21 accomplished or  with  nonverbal  feelings  or c o g n i t i o n s i n a d d i t i o n  responses,  i t may  conceptualize  coping  terms  interpersonal  factors.  For example, strategies:  in  coping  coping  of  both  coping  That  (Billings  instead  1982)  & Moos,  can change  of  changing or  of two main coping.  occurs  when  a  or a v o i d i n g the s p e c i f i c  something  about  the environment  finding  to  i n t r a p e r s o n a l and  These s t r a t e g i e s can a l s o be focused  i s , the person  herself  appropriate  and emotion-focused  person t r i e s t o f i n d a way of changing problem s i t u a t i o n .  more  can be d e f i n e d i n terms  problem-focused  Problem-focused  be  to verbal  aspiration  levels  resources).  On the other hand, emotion-focused  inward.  himself  (eg.  alternative  or  changing  gratification coping  (Lazarus  & Folkman, 1984) i n v o l v e s the person focusing on a l l e v i a t i n g the emotions a s s o c i a t e d with situation one  itself  cannot  the s t r e s s f u l be changed.  situation,  even  if  C a t e g o r i z i n g coping  the  into  of the above two categories i s but one way of g e n e r a l l y  d e f i n i n g types of coping. For Coping  the purpose Inventory  of t h i s  has  study,  been  Bowman's  adopted  as  a  (1990)  Marital  measure  which  c o n c e p t u a l i z e s coping i n terms of f i v e major kinds of s t r a t e g i e s employed  by  married  conflict,  (3)  avoidance,  self-interest.  couples: (4)  Bowman's  (1)  positive  introspective inventory  approach,  self-blame,  appears  to  (2)  and (5) combine  i n t r a p e r s o n a l coping f a c t o r s  (e.g., i n t r o s p e c t i v e self-blame and  self-interest)  interpersonal strategies  approach,  with  conflict  general  and avoidance)  i n order  (positive  to conceptualize  22 coping.  Although  definition,  this  i t does  inventory i s not  account  for  some  comprehensive  variety  in  in its  the  coping  responses of couples. While marital  the  coping  research factors  devoted  to  measurement  i s scarce, research devoted  of  specific  to studying  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between coping f a c t o r s and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i s also limited.  In the l i t e r a t u r e on m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n  and  m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n , the most c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g i s that m a r i t a l satisfaction solving  is  positively  strategies  (such  related  as  to  constructive  n e g o t i a t i o n and  compromise)  n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to negative problem-solving as  withdrawal  1990).  avoidance)  Negative  affects) couples  or  interaction  (Bowman,  strategies  1990;  Noller  &  (e.g., negative content  rather  than  happily  married  couples  codes  Studies comparing d i s t r e s s e d  couples  i n v o l v e more negative  (Baucom,  Weiss & Heyman, 1990) . appears  to  (Birchler  led  to  1978) .  be  Notarius,  behaviors  Burnett,  &  related  to  couple  Gottman et a l . , 1976;  increased Indirect  relationship  support  satisfaction  such  as  d e n i a l of 1990;  interaction satisfaction  Gottman  Programs designed to enhance problem-solving  1984;  couples  Haefner,  In contrast, problem-solving  significantly  et a l . , 1975;  1979;  interactions  c r i t i c i s m s , h o s t i l i t y , negative nonverbal behavior and responsibility  and  married  (Gottman,  to n o n d i s t r e s s e d couples found that problem-solving of d i s t r e s s e d  (such  Hahlweg, Revenstorf, & S c h i n d l e r ,  Margolin & Wampold, 1981) .  and  White,  i s more common i n the i n t e r a c t i o n of unhappily  Gottman & Krokoff, 1989;  1977) .  problem-  et a l . ,  skills  (Jacobson,  have 1977,  f o r the above s t u d i e s i s a l s o p r o v i d e d  23 by  Bowman's  exist  between  According with  (1990)  study  marital  Approach  Conflict  (r=-0.27),  interest  (r=-0.42)  contradiction  to  administered reported:  Approach  was  administration  either  because  of  suggest  newlywed for  a  found  longer that  assertion ignoring  covary covaries  DeLongis, 1990;  1986;  Whiffen  significant or  positive  only  to  scale's  latter  of  a  I n any case, responses  marital  with  lower  the  relations  that  several  with  Menaghan,  problem  from  such  as  Self-  -0.23).  In  spouses Positive  for  Cohan may or  marital  the  first  and Bradbury have  occurred  because  and  Cohan  of  their and  the  study. Bradbury  i n the marriage of  other  satisfaction  couples  and  and  Laporte  of  married  researchers  have self-  selective  satisfaction  Sabourin,  (1994)  newlywed  self-reliance  marital  1982;  (r=-0.40);  husbands'  study  possibility,  chronicity  with:  between  inadequacies Bowman's  correlated  correlated  Conflict  results  between  to  that  contradictory  & Gotlib,  Although  a n d 2)  scores.  and Bradbury  correlation  may b e d i f f e r e n t  coping  relations  coping  (r=  Inventory  However,  the  time.  Cohan  inventory.  the  that  couples  Coping  satisfaction;  difference to  Avoidance  negative  the  these  regards  (1994)  of  Self-Blame  findings,  related  that  sampling With  a  and marital  satisfaction  explain  1)  and  but negatively  lastly  Marital  significant  ratings  Introspective and  that  h a p p i n e s s was p o s i t i v e l y  (r=0.23)  Bowman's  the  found  happiness  t o Bowman, m a r i t a l  Positive  and  which  (Coyne &  &  Wright,  1989).  above  studies  between  interactions,  marital  researchers  suggest  that  satisfaction suggest  that  there and  are  negative  there  is  a  24 stronger  r e l a t i o n s h i p between m a r i t a l  s a t i s f a c t i o n and negative  i n t e r a c t i o n than p o s i t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n (Gottman & Krokoff, 1989; see  Gottman,  1979 f o r a review).  Perhaps  positive  behaviors  c o n t r i b u t e t o m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n but negative behaviors have a greater  e f f e c t on m a r i t a l  satisfaction.  However, the d i r e c t i o n  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these negative behaviors and m a r i t a l satisfaction example,  may  coping  satisfaction 1983b).  depend has  somewhat  been  found  i n longitudinal  Furthermore,  negative behaviors  on  length  to  studies  affect  time.  later  (Markman,  l o n g i t u d i n a l studies  may d i f f e r  of  have  indicated  satisfaction  Krokoff,  1990; Sayers et a l . , 1991; Woody & Constanzo,  anger  Krokoff,  1989;  that  t o future  marital  More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  &  marital  1979; Menaghan,  i n their relationship  (Gottman  For  Gottman  &  1990).  some negative behaviors and a f f e c t s such as  and disagreement  were  negatively  related  to  present  m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n but p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d with increases i n marital  satisfaction later  Gottman  & Krokoff,  1990; Sayers  Gottman and Krokoff conflict marriage  Interestingly,  predicted  predicted  improved they  strongly predicted  (Gottman  also  current  deterioration  marital  In a d d i t i o n ,  dissatisfaction  satisfaction  that  positive  over  verbal  i n marital  satisfaction  s a t i s f a c t i o n over time.  Bradbury a l s o found that  higher  with time.  behavior  s a t i s f a c t i o n i n women but over  However, f o r men i t was the husband's withdrawal which change i n m a r i t a l  1989;  f o r both men and women,  current  marital found  & Krokoff,  et a l . , 1991).  (1989) found that,  engagement but  i n time  it  time.  predicted  In 1994, Cohan and  l e v e l s of c o n f l i c t  i n husbands  was b e n e f i c i a l f o r t h e i r future e v a l u a t i o n of the marriage wives who showed " S e l f - i n t e r e s t " avoided the c o n f l i c t and  t h i s had a negative  impact  on the wives  while  resolution  future evaluation  1  of the marriage. Despite these important this  study  coping  t o examine  on  f i n d i n g s , i t i s beyond the scope of  longitudinal  marital  satisfaction.  unmeasured  delayed  effects  predictive  strength  of  By  on  coping  effects  virtue  marital efforts  of a l l types of  possible  satisfaction,  may  be  are  important  to be aware that the r e s u l t s  limited  to p r e d i c t i n g  current  in  Thus i t  of the present  marital  the  affected  comparison with perceived intimacy and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . is  of  satisfaction  study with  p o s i t i v e coping e f f o r t s as one of the p r e d i c t o r s .  Interrelationships Although relationship  Among  the main between  variables,  i t is  relationships  shared  focus  of  marital  still  among  Kev V a r i a b l e s the present  satisfaction  important  the i n d i v i d u a l  virtue  of  features,  between  key v a r i a b l e s .  to  and  strong  relationships questions  conceptually and  different.  of each  openness i n communication may  many ways,  they  self-disclosure  the  By arise  regarding the However, the as  being  perceived  intimacy  c o n t r i b u t e to each  other i n  are not the same concept. and  may  v a r i a b l e are viewed  For example, while  other  possible  v a r i a b l e s themselves.  Consequently,  definitions  i s the  three  contemplate  d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y of measures are f o r s e e a b l e . operational  study  perception  of  More  specifically,  idealized  intimacy  26  achieved i n the couple's r e l a t i o n s h i p are c o n c e p t u a l l y d i s t i n c t . In  any  case,  exploring  some  of  the  interconnections  among  v a r i a b l e s presents a l t e r n a t i v e explanations which a r e worthy of consideration.  Communication and Intimacy. During  communication,  (Watzlawick,  Beavin,  & Jackson,  each creates a context w i t h i n that context. a  context  for  people  have an e f f e c t  1967).  f o r the other  As two people and r e l a t e s  In r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,  the  other;  2)  on each  other  interact,  t o the other  each person:  simultaneously  1) creates  creates  and  i n t e r p r e t s messages; and 3) a f f e c t s and i s a f f e c t e d by the other (Galvin & Brommel, relationship and  transforms  therefore  Enholm,  1991).  communication  reality  transforms  1987).  In  Hence, p a r t i c i p a t i o n definitions  the partners  addition,  i s important  interviews,  it  that  incongruence  i n their  For  example, while  not  met,  Blanton couple's  incongruence For  example,  relationship  spouse  (1993) suggest inability  found  one spouse  the other  themselves have  i n h e l p i n g couples (Robinson  was  f o r both  researchers  of connectedness and intimacy  some  be  to communicate  needs.  found  that  1993).  From  experience  because  1993).  needs a r e  Robinson  may r e s u l t  and  from the  At the same  i n perceptions could i n turn i n h i b i t  &  a sense  & Blanton,  unaware.  that the incongruence  (Stephen  couples  (Robinson  partners  maintain  & Blanton,  i s frustrated  could  i n an intimate  time,  communication.  spouses who perceive themselves as d i f f e r e n t  from  t h e i r partners with regards t o needs and expectations may t r y to  a v o i d any  possible  conflict  by not  communicating  and  remaining  quiet. Studies their  showing d i f f e r e n c e s between husbands and  views  of  researchers important Olson,  self-disclosure  with  the  impression  characteristic  1981;  and  of  a  Waring & Chelune,  intimacy  that  wives  have  left  self-disclosure  couple's 1983).  intimacy  Although  in  is  (Shaefer  an &  i t i s unclear  whether communication precedes or i s a byproduct of intimacy, i t is  plausible  in  that  communication can a f f e c t  relationships.  characterized  by  of  These  things.  reflecting  Long-term,  people  the members'  of  enduring  their  develop  a  reflect  relationship (Stephen,  exchange messages  influence  Communication  Hess and  Handel  set of meanings.  (1959) suggest  these meanings because  the  that  view  1986).  The  form  among  and  family  and provides  In t h e i r c l a s s i c work,  interpersonal  closeness  world  the  members shapes the s t r u c t u r e of the spousal system the couple with i t s own  are  to the meanings  interdependence  relationships.  changes  relationships  agreements between members as  ways i n which people content  and  or  ties  reflect  d i s t a n c e between  two  members d e r i v e from the i n t e r l o c k i n g meanings which occur among them.  More  specifically,  one  can  argue  that  the  process  of  openness i n communication can a f f e c t the attainment  of  intimacy  perceptions,  in  that,  if  spouses  expectations, and yearnings to one chance of i d e n t i f y i n g , each  other's needs.  disclose another,  understanding Hence,  their  spouses  and may  idealized  they have a  attempting then  to  better fulfill  experience  more  s a t i s f a c t i o n i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p where they p e r c e i v e that they are  28 not  f a r o f f from  support (1991) and  of  this  their  explanation,  administered  found  that  disclosure other's  idealized  satisfaction  as c r i t i c a l intimacy  related which  Amidon  to 75  and  married  In Bernt  couples  t o intimacy,  partners  specifically,  provided e m p i r i c a l support  successful  was  and the perceptions More  relationship.  Merves-Okin,  s e v e r a l instruments  behavior.  marriage  intimate  had  self-  of  the study's  each  findings  f o r v e r b a l d i s c l o s u r e of f e e l i n g s i n  to f u l f i l l i n g and  partners'  ultimately  their  expectations of  perceived  marital  satisfaction.  Communication and Cooing. There may e x i s t an overlap between v a r i a b l e s on the M a r i t a l Coping  Inventory  and v a r i a b l e s  Gottman  and Krokoff  certain  aspects  problem  (1989)  on  presented  of communication  solving,  the Communication  conflict  interaction  engagement  i n t e r a c t i o n ) may a f f e c t s a t i s f a c t i o n . may be viewed as coping behaviors inventory.  One may pose  coping behaviors ?  Based  Blanton  interviews  (1993)  suggest  from that  enhancing  the closeness  (such  these  Are these  fifteen couples  couples, who  of t h e i r  from  behaviors  according t o Bowman's  from communication  that  as p o s i t i v e  withdrawal  Likewise,  c o n s t r u c t i v e l y were able to avoid c o n f l i c t thus  suggesting  and  the question:  truly distinct  on  evidence  Scale.  (1990)  particular interactions  Robinson and  could  communicate  and r e s o l v e problems  relationship.  case, coping and communication seem t o be c l o s e l y  tied.  In t h i s  29 Some  previous  communication example,  /  research  coping  Komarovsky  are s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g marriages. reported  Lloyd that,  has demonstrated  behavior  (1962)  a  and m a r i t a l  reported  that  link  between  quality.  For  b l u e - c o l l a r husbands  i n happy marriages but withdrawn i n unhappy (1987) studied  f o r women,  fifty  premarital  the greater  the  couples and  self-disclosure  anxiety, the greater the number of c o n f l i c t s seemed t o be, while self-disclosure significantly noted  anxiety  between  r e s o l u t i o n of c o n f l i c t .  that  that  lower  i n order  feelings  l e d t o a lower One might  Despite  some  between  communication  thereby  of the evidence  that  and coping  f o r the purpose  was  seemed t o  fears  of the  i n women t o  then conclude that not  self-disclosing  conflict,  This or  On the  anxiety  tendency  ( i . e . greater  one's spouse i s an aspect  marital  that  resolution.  of d i s c l o s i n g  about  resolution.  self-disclosure  perceived  being  argue  to reach  higher  resolution.  still  r e s o l u t i o n of  more  attempt c o n f l i c t  resolving  and  to avoid  husband's anger may have  d i s c l o s u r e ) with  anxiety  the men may have had a d e s i r e  fears  anxious  gender d i f f e r e n c e s  thus  f o r women,  suggest  Lloyd further  anxiety,  other  with  were  self-disclosure  conflict  associated  fashion.  In men, greater p e r c e i v e d  interactional hand,  conflicts  self-disclosure  was r e l a t e d to higher  suggesting  of  showed some i n t e r e s t i n g  the r e l a t i o n  conflicts  resolution  c o r r e l a t e d i n a negative  that her data  regarding  and  of coping  enhancing suggests  behavior  self-  with and  satisfaction. an  interaction  may e x i s t ,  of the present  one can  study,  self-  30 d i s c l o s u r e and coping behaviors are two separate c o n s t r u c t s that d i f f e r i n function.  Intimacy and Cooing. Hobfoll without  and  Lerman  intimacy  marriages  (1988)  have  are i n h e r e n t l y  stated  that  stressful.  marriages  Therefore,  l a c k i n g intimacy, i t seems that very e f f e c t i v e  strategies  would be required by the spouses  in  coping  t o withstand the  s t r e s s and s u s t a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Unfortunately,  few s t u d i e s  have given  and coping.  a t t e n t i o n to the l i n k  between  intimacy  In 1988, Krokoff et a l . found that many couples  i n their  d i d not have a companionate set of expectations and  that  daily  these  life.  couples Thus,  expectations behavior.  characteristically  there  may  exist  do  How  expectations  not share  perceive  or  their  common  relationship  as  with  each  other or  Kohlhepp  may  the  never  between  that  cope with c o n f l i c t  In support (1984)  of t h i s  state  that  operate  intimate.  a  sense  they  together  who  can  i n the  Perhaps  o r yearnings  couples  develop  confidence  may  ideally  the sense of intimacy,  1983).  conflict in  relationship  i s unknown.  expectations  with  successfully  a  ideals  along  efficacy"  avoided  marriage  (which can stem from i d e a l s ) and choice of coping  r e l a t i o n s h i p with coping behaviors who  about  sample  do not Moreover,  avoid of  couples  conflict  "relational  withstand  and  (Notarius  & Vanzetti,  contention,  Swensen,  Eskew, and  those  cope  "who  actively  with  problems and c o n f l i c t s i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p , and who have c r e a t e d s e c u r i t y i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p by a personal commitment t o each  3 1 other,  create  a  vital,  stimulating,  and  r e l a t i o n s h i p that does not d e t e r i o r a t e "  Consideration The  culture,  may  particular  influenced  education, of  could  stereotyping  For  example,  willingness  Jewish  to  themselves at another  more  a  than  to  and  an  or  c u l t u r a l norms.  expectations variation.  may  exhibit  describe  also  regarding Hurvitz  view  spouses  activities, class  as  disclosure.  skill  Irish  families  was  &  acting  as  be  Karrer, regarding  from  to  cultural  a  (1977) reported  and  source that  in  of a  respondents were more l i k e l y  with  expectations  thoughts.  respondents viewed marriages and  Apart  thus  Komarovsky  companions,  to  s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g behavior  intimacy,  and  find  1982) .  found  (Falicov  a  what they were exposed  culture.  influence  and  (McGoldrick,  society  a  heritage  society  depending on  in  Cultural  have d i f f e r e n t expectations  l e i s u r e time, and  complementary duties,  married,  possible  verbal  while  as:  means of  type of  feelings  comparison of studies, middle-class to  such  membership  by  amount and  Anglo-American  disclosure  SES  influence  feelings  i n t h e i r family of o r i g i n and heritage,  with,  a Mexican-American  an  associated  number of years  begin  the  its  demographic v a r i a b l e s  be  about  Thus, spouses may  intimacy  by  families  loss  study,  open  1980) .  talk  (p.104) .  s a t i s f a c t i o n , and  To  been found to i n f l u e n c e  intimate  Variables  gender, age,  children.  culture  gender-role  In  be  SES,  number  has  Demographic  experience of m a r i t a l  variables,  and  of  satisfying  as  In  contrast,  including  mutual devotion,  of  but  sexual  not  sharing workingunion,  friendship.  32 Also,  two-thirds of the wives i n t h i s  mothers,  sisters,  conducted  a  or  study  friends.  and  found  In a  Moore  between wife's and  and  Waite  income  (1981)  Crohan  their Veroff  between  Somewhat c o n t r a d i c t i n g found  a  negative  of  total  More  recently,  McGonagle,  In a d d i t i o n ,  this  association  f a m i l y income) Kessler,  (1992) found no a s s o c i a t i o n between SES  rough index of SES)  and  association  component  of m a r i t a l disagreements.  quality  confided i n  (as a  marital quality.  Schilling  1989,  positive  family income and m a r i t a l q u a l i t y . result,  group  and  education  and  frequency  (which  is a  has been p o s i t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m a r i t a l  (Spanier & Lewis,  1980).  P e a r l i n and  Schooler's  study  (1978) reported that education i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the of more e f f e c t i v e coping techniques.  S u i t o r and  use  P i l l e m e r (1987)  found that education showed a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h v e r b a l aggression.  On  education had  the no  other  effect  hand,  with  Bowman  regards  (1990)  to use  of  reported five  that  different  coping e f f o r t s i n her study. Aside  from  differences  the  (which  socialization)  can  above may  demographic  occur  demonstrate  v a r i a b l e s i n the present study. been  seen  as  Women tend disclose  to  more  information; (Pearson,  more  disclosing  g e n e r a l l y be negative and  1989).  they  gender  differences  relations  with  in key  For example, female p a i r s have than  male  higher  disclose to  to  different  pairs  disclosers  information;  Contrary  Okin, Ami don and Bernt  due  variables,  they  more  some of  (Cline, than  provide intimate  these  1989) .  men;  less  they honest  information  findings,  Merves-  (1991) found that husbands and wives gave  33 similar  responses  self-disclosure Antill  t o instruments  measuring  attitudes  and v e r b a l expression of f e e l i n g s .  and Cotton  (1987)  reported  that  toward  Likewise,  husbands  and  wives  g e n e r a l l y d i s c l o s e d the same amount of i n f o r m a t i o n . Aside reviewed  from  i n the l i t e r a t u r e  coping  distraction Schooler, interest  techniques,  1978);  conflict,  found  women  Other  to confront  Lefebvre,  that  Kirsch  used  women  In support  more  to women,  external (Pearlin & and s e l f -  found  that  Weier,  & Harrison,  of t h i s ,  Kelley,  Cunningham,  (1978) s t u d i e d c o n f l i c t and  t o be " c o n f l i c t - c o n f r o n t i v e "  men  wives  (Burke,  Sink and Yablon tend  t o men's  self-blame  s t u d i e s have  (1987)  f o r gender  Compared  have  issues  tend t o be " c o n f l i c t - a v o i d a n t . " compared  on coping.  introspective  (Bowman, 1990).  Ashmore, 1986).  Grisham,  and  (Sidle et a l . , 1969); s e l e c t i v e i g n o r i n g  are more l i k e l y 1976;  Miller  200 studies and reported equivocal support  differences general  self-disclosure,  Others  use avoidance  while men  have a l s o  found  (Bowman,  1990) ;  that, they  withdraw (Levenson & Gottman, 1985) o r they r e l y on c o n c i l i a t o r y and  factual  al.,  1974). Such  partner's  explanations  different perception  relationship. is  behaviors of  are bound  intimacy  and  to  1981; Raush et  influence  happiness  Gove et a l . (1983) found that happiness  more r e l a t e d  happiness  (Margolin & Wampold,  t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p ' s  i n men  i s related  more  emotional  to s t a t u s .  i n the i n women  quality In  each  while  unhappy  marriages, women complain  that t h e i r husbands are too withdrawn  while  that  the men  complain  their  wives  a r e too  conflict  34 engaging et  (Locke, 1951).  a l . (1991)  Roberts and  suggested  that  Krokoff  husbands'  (1990) and  withdrawal  followed by wives' i n c r e a s i n g h o s t i l i t y and that  Sayers  was  often  such a p a t t e r n  was  r e l a t e d s t r o n g l y to the couples' s a t i s f a c t i o n .  al.  (1989) suggest that d i s t r e s s e d wives may  N o t a r i u s et  use t h e i r negative  behaviors to press t h e i r issues so that they are heard by husbands and t h e i r concerns are addressed. are  uncomfortable  such  with  interactions,  1985) .  the  they  arousal  will  Consequently, women may  care.  However, i f husbands  that  withdraw  their  i s engendered (Levenson  &  during Gottman,  f e e l that t h e i r husbands do not  Both partners w i l l most l i k e l y  experience d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  i n the marriage. In  addition  to the  above  number of years married may of  this  research  study's v a r i a b l e s .  demographic  show an e f f e c t Waterman  on  discussion  spouse  might  self-disclosure  vary over  a period  age  in relation  of  since of  time.  age  or  the  length  content  More  and  to some  (1979) r e p o r t e d that  i s unclear regarding the e f f e c t  marriage  variables,  the of of  recently,  A n t i l l and Cotton reported that d i s c l o s u r e l e v e l s decreased with length of the marriage. i n the sample, which  data may  Also,  i f newlyweds are overrepresented  be subjected to the "honeymoon e f f e c t , "  i s the strong general tendency (1967), who  was  to r a t e one's marriage concerned w i t h t h i s  as  successful.  Edmonds  source  of confound,  claims to have bypassed t h i s i s s u e because most of  the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n h i s study were married more than f i v e y e a r s . Hence, o b t a i n i n g  a representative  such sources of confounding.  sample r e q u i r e s  awareness  of  In  addition,  couples  have  with  been  respect t o m a r i t a l  found  to experience  satisfaction,  less  marital  older  conflict  (Argyle & Furnham, 1983) so i t i s reasonable t o hypothesize o l d e r couples may experience more m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . other  hand,  marriage  Swensen  problems,  that  remain  committed.  as l e n g t h of decreases.  as long as couples a c t i v e l y  cope with  Researchers  (Johnson,  White,  Edwards  &  1986; McGonagle et a l . , 1992) have i d e n t i f i e d a negative  relationship  between  disagreements.  length  and  frequency  However, i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o t h i s view,  (1989)  Krokoff  marriage  found no d i f f e r e n c e  i n marital  years and another younger sample of couples married of 4.2 y e a r s .  significant well  of 2 3 . 9  an average (1980)  (1990)  found  d i f f e r e n c e s i n use of coping e f f o r t s r e l a t e d t o age  as  discovered  Gottman  As f o r coping, while Folkman and Lazarus  d i d not f i n d age e f f e c t s i n general coping, Bowman  of  satisfaction  between an o l d e r sample of couples married an average  as  On the  are i n the complex stages of ego development, and are  personally  and  found  increases, intimacy and expression of love  Satisfaction will  Booth,  (1984)  et a l .  that  duration the  of marriage.  following  effects  More on  specifically,  the  Marital  she  Coping  Inventory: C o n f l i c t and I n t r o s p e c t i v e Self-Blame peaked i n 20-29 year age;  o l d participants Positive  and f e l l  Approach  was  t o a low l e v e l  at  i t s lowest  with i n 40  increasing year o l d  p a r t i c i p a n t s but i t rose with an increase i n age; C o n f l i c t and Introspective Avoidance marriages.  Self-Blame  and  Positive  were used Approach  more i n s h o r t e r were  However, some studies found that  greater  marriages; in  (as a block)  longer coping  36 efforts  were  predictors  more  of  powerful  than  marital  happiness  number  of  demographic  and  variables  problems  as  (Bowman,  1990;  White, 1983). Finally, demographic Recently,  consideration  Antill  and  children  is  also  when assessing  Cotton  (1987)  an  important  marital s a t i s f a c t i o n .  reported  that  disclosure  l e v e l s between husbands and wives decreased with the number of children. presence  Previously, of  quality.  children  Johnson  children living  Spanier and was  et  Lewis  negatively  al.  (1986)  (1980) found  associated  reported  with  that  the  marital  couples  with  at home disagree more o f t e n than couples who  not have c h i l d r e n .  The  do  r e l a t i o n s h i p between number of c h i l d r e n  and m a r i t a l q u a l i t y , however, has shown mixed r e s u l t s Lewis, 1980) .  that  (Spanier &  As f o r coping, Bowman (1990) found no s i g n i f i c a n t  r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number of c h i l d r e n and coping  efforts.  L i k e some of the other demographic v a r i a b l e s , number of c h i l d r e n could be r e l a t e d to one of the key v a r i a b l e s  i n t h i s study,  but  not another. Given the i n c o n c l u s i v e nature of the l i t e r a t u r e above,  i t seems  especially  demographics  demonstrate  variables  this  of  interrelations  study;  between key  important  any  to  investigate  relationships  however, variables  specific and  highlighted  with  whether the  predictions  key about  demographics w i l l  not  be ventured. The exploratory  following  chapter  (method)  will  pose  research questions and s p e c i f i c hypotheses  the c o r r e l a t e s and p r e d i c t o r s i n t h i s study.  several regarding  37 Chapter I I I Method  Hypotheses In and  and  light  research  1  Question  Exploratory  of  the  Is  self-disclosure, husbands'  Hypothesis  and  positive  2  2:  satisfaction predictors  difference,  jointly  and  predicted  positive  by  coping  for  marital  satisfaction  by s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ,  intimacy  will  be  difference,  marital  by s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ,  satisfaction intimacy  will  be  difference,  coping.  Do  coping  hypotheses  below.  satisfaction  The h u s b a n d s '  predicted  :  specific  coping.  positive  Question  reviewed,  outlined  The w i v e s '  1:  Questions  ?  predicted  Hypothesis  and  intimacy  positive  jointly  are  marital  and wives'  jointly  literature  questions  :  Research  each  beyond  self-disclosure, make the  a  intimacy  separate  contribution  difference,  contribution made  by  to  the  and  marital  other  ?  Hypothesis positive  3:  coping  contribution Hypothesis positive  Self-disclosure,  to  4:  marital  separate  satisfaction  Self-disclosure,  coping  contribution  e a c h make a  to  e a c h make a marital  intimacy and in  intimacy  separate  satisfaction  and in  difference,  and  distinct wives. difference, distinct husbands.  and  two  Question marital  3  :  satisfaction  Hypothesis are  5:  positively  Hypothesis are  6:  positively  Question marital  What  4  :  What  satisfaction  is  the  nature  and p o s i t i v e Marital  correlated  correlated  is  the  nature  of  and i n t i m a c y  are  negatively  Hypothesis  8:  Marital  difference  are  negatively  marital  satisfaction  Hypothesis are  positively  Hypothesis are  Question  9:  10:  positively  6  :  self-disclosure  What  the  the  difference  What  for  for  Marital  :  coping  is  and p o s i t i v e  and p o s i t i v e  the  correlated  of  and  and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  is  the  nature  and intimacy  Hypothesis  11:  negatively  correlated  Hypothesis  12:  negatively  correlated  for  for  intimacy the  husbands.  relationship  between  and  self-disclosure  and  self-disclosure  of  the  and  relationship  between  ? intimacy  difference  are  intimacy  difference  are  wives.  Self-disclosure for  wives.  husbands.  difference  Self-disclosure  the  wives.  satisfaction  correlated  intimacy  ?  Marital satisfaction  Marital  for  the  between  ?  for  correlated  for  coping  relationship  and  satisfaction  correlated  coping  husbands.  difference  nature  between  wives.  satisfaction  the  relationship  ?  Marital satisfaction  7:  5  the  satisfaction  Hypothesis  Question  of  and  husbands.  39 7  Question  : What i s the nature  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and p o s i t i v e coping ? Hypothesis 13: S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and p o s i t i v e coping a r e p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r wives. Hypothesis 14: S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and p o s i t i v e coping are p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d f o r husbands.  8  Question  : What i s the nature  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between  intimacy d i f f e r e n c e and p o s i t i v e coping ? Hypothesis 15: Intimacy d i f f e r e n c e negatively  c o r r e l a t e d f o r wives.  Hypothesis 16: Intimacy d i f f e r e n c e negatively  9  Question  disclosure,  No  and p o s i t i v e coping are  c o r r e l a t e d f o r husbands.  : Which  of  the  three  intimacy d i f f e r e n c e ,  makes a greater marital  and p o s i t i v e coping are  contribution  key  positive  predictors  coping)  to ( i . e . plays  comparatively  a larger  r o l e in)  s a t i s f a c t i o n i n wives and husbands? hypotheses  has been  ventured  regarding  the strongest  p r e d i c t o r of the three v a r i a b l e s since there i s l i t t l e evidence on t h i s i s s u e . Robinson  and Blanton  characteristics conclusion  empirical  I t i s worth mentioning, however, (1993,  p.42)  identified  " c e n t r a l q u a l i t y of enduring marriages i n that  its  (self-  impacted  or were impacted  intimacy  that as  a  a l l of the other  by intimacy."  This  was based on the many references made to intimacy and  r e l a t e d concepts i n interviews tapping couples'  regarding m a r i t a l  quality.  Such evidence h i n t s  perceptions  at intimacy as  40 being one p r e d i c t o r that w i l l make a g r e a t e r unique  contribution  to m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n .  Question  10  predictors  : What are the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the (self-disclosure,  coping)  and demographic  degree,  years  culture,  intimacy  variables  of marriage,  years  number of c h i l d r e n ,  difference,  key-  positive  (age, years  of education,  of p r e m a r i t a l  cohabitation,  occupation, income) f o r wives and  f o r husbands?  Question  11  : What  demographic v a r i a b l e s  Question  12  the  satisfaction  interrelationships  among  the  f o r wives and f o r husbands?  : Is the j o i n t  intimacy d i f f e r e n c e , marital  are  contribution  of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ,  and p o s i t i v e coping to husbands' o r wives' improved  by  age, years  of  education,  occupation, years of marriage, number of c h i l d r e n , o r income?  Participants The 106 respondents i n t h i s study were 52 men and 54 women representing Initially,  50 husband-wife  p a i r s and 6 a d d i t i o n a l  58 couples were r e c r u i t e d ,  i n d i v i d u a l s withdrew from the study. a  spouse,  analyzed. consisted  data  f o r the remaining  respondents.  but s e v e r a l  couples and  Despite the withdrawal of spouses  were  retained  Therefore, f o r purposes of data a n a l y s i s , of 52 husbands  and 54 wives,  o r 106  and  the sample  participants.  F i v e of the 52 (9.6%) men and four of the 54 women (7.4%)  lived  41 outside  of  Vancouver.  questionnaire, women.  Mean  According  the mean ages length  41.9  were  of marriage  to  the  demographics  f o r men and 3 9 . 7 f o r  was 1 4 . 2 years  (range  of 2  months t o 49 years) , mean length of p r e m a r i t a l c o h a b i t a t i o n was 10.2  months,  and on average  the p a r t i c i p a n t s  had one  child.  With respect t o the men's primary ethnic h e r i t a g e , approximately 96.2%  described  themselves 94.5%  themselves  as Asian.  described  In the sample  themselves  themselves  as Asian.  Caucasian,  ethnicity  as Caucasian,  of women,  as Caucasian,  Because  and 3.85% d e s c r i b e d  and 5.56%  the majority  was not included  approximately described  of the sample was  as a p r e d i c t o r  i n the  r e g r e s s i o n s o r as a v a r i a b l e i n the c o r r e l a t i o n s . The average length of education was 1 5 . 6 5 years f o r men and 14.64 of  years f o r women.  With regards t o a highest degree,  23.1% of the men had a  the men had a high school diploma,  certificate degree, degree.  or professional  In the sample of women, 35.2% had a t l e a s t a h i g h s c h o o l 20.4%  Bachelor's  had a  degree,  certificate  /  and 11.1% had a  Of the men i n the sample,  diploma,  graduate  33.3%  or p r o f e s s i o n a l  was $ 3 0 , 0 0 0  the sample of women, 42.6% were unemployed  terms  of most recent  themselves collar  -  $50,000.  and the average  annual income f o r those who were employed was $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 In  had a  13% were unemployed and the  average annual income f o r those employed In  had a Bachelor's  and 19.2% of the men had a graduate  diploma,  degree.  36.5% of the men  o r diploma,  15.32%  -  $30,000.  occupation, none of the men d e s c r i b e d  as homemakers, 1.92% were students, 15.4% were blue  (manual)  workers,  11.5% were  white  collar  (clerical)  42 workers, 11.5%  50% were  were  i n a professional  or managerial  self-employed, owners of a business,  r e t i r e d o r r e c e i v i n g a pension.  d e s c r i b e d themselves  16.7% were blue c o l l a r (clerical)  workers,  and 5.8% were  In the sample of women, three  women d i d not d e f i n e t h e i r occupation. 20.4%  position,  Of the remaining women,  as homemakers,  5.6% were  students,  (manual) workers, 11.1% were white  35.2% were i n a p r o f e s s i o n a l  collar  o r managerial  p o s i t i o n , 3.7% were self-employed owners of a business, and 1.9% were r e t i r e d o r r e c e i v i n g a pension.  Procedure  Data  the  Collection.  Data c o l l e c t i o n  commenced once approval was obtained  University  British  of  Screening Committee Appendix A).  Columbia's  f o r Research  A pilot  Behavioural  from  Sciences  I n v o l v i n g Human Subjects (see  study of 3 couples was conducted  i n order  to t r y out the procedures and i d e n t i f y p r a c t i c a l i s s u e s (such as administation questions), study,  time  and ease of comprehending  i n s t r u c t i o n s and  that might have r e q u i r e d changes.  i t was assumed  that,  f o r the purpose  m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n analyses, approximately would be adequate per v a r i a b l e .  For the a c t u a l of  fifteen  performing  participants  According t o Wampold and Freund  (1987) and Cohen & Cohen (1983), the power of a study depends on the measure of i n t e r e s t number of independent  (eg. R^), the s i z e of the sample, the  variables,  and the alpha l e v e l .  power c a l c u l a t i o n s by Wampold and Freund  (1987),  Based on  i f l a r g e r R^ s 1  43 (eg.0.50) are of i n t e r e s t and one would l i k e  to achieve a power  l e v e l of 0.70 (eg. to have a 70% chance of o b t a i n i n g a that  i s s i g n i f i c a n t ) , then  13 p a r t i c i p a n t s  per v a r i a b l e are  necessary i n a study that employs three independent This  correlational  satisfaction independent and  as  between  goal  variable).  dependent  was  real  to  and i d e a l  marital  with  recruit  60  couples  three  efforts,  Hence, the  (15  couples  per  Some d i f f i c u l t y was encountered i n o b t a i n i n g couples  Vancouver  Island  Therefore, s e v e r a l out of town  and i n t e r i o r  s i x questionnaires  interest  along  intimacy.  B.C.)  i n c l u d e d to i n c r e a s e the sample s i z e . all  examined  variable  who met the i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a . (eg.  study  variables.  v a r i a b l e s : s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , p o s i t i v e coping  disparity  initial  the  field  finding  to  by  participate  investigator.  For each a  mail but  of  could  reminder  to  were  also  These couples were sent  because  these  couples  they  not  indicated  meet  couples,  with  an the  instructions for  participation  and  complete  questionnaires  independently were given once by phone and a l s o  i n w r i t t e n form. A f t e r a l l data was c o l l e c t e d , done to i d e n t i f y from The  local  whether  couples  results  these  i n their  of t h i s  couples  mail  in  an a n a l y s i s was  differed  mean responses  analysis  and  significantly  on key v a r i a b l e s .  are presented  i n the  results  s e c t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s .  Recruitment. Couples universities,  were  recruited  by  advertisements  in  community centers, restaurants, radio,  colleges, television  44 (local In  community  order  all  information channel),  to p a r t i c i p a t e ,  couples  be  research has  married  inclusion  for  the  s e v e r a l newspapers.  criteria  first  time,  found that m a r i t a l disagreements  among remarried couples other  the  and  research has  since  previous  are l e s s  frequent  (McGonagle et a l . , 1992).  found  no  differences  couples  currently included  were  receiving  also  marital  c o n t r i b u t e d by  experiencing  extreme  the  problems  their marital responsibilities. counseling may and may  couples  therapy).  This  to avoid  responses in  (i.e.  of  couples  communicating  possibility  excluding  be  fulfilling  (along  from  homosexual  with  studying and  limited  marriage  Also, r e l a t i v e found  b i s e x u a l couples.  to  (1991) study.  couples)  issues  justified  Finally,  were i n c l u d e d only i f they were E n g l i s h speaking;  to  to leave  generalizability  homosexual  seek  In t h i s respect,  heterosexual couples, homosexual couples were  arise  may  demonstrate a strong commitment to t h e i r  an u n s a t i s f y i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p according to Kurdek's  which  may  who  or  was  that  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , couples who  be s o p h i s t i c a t e d i n counseling s k i l l s .  not  criterion  be l e s s committed to t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p and more l i k e l y  This  caution  confounding  they too could be a source f o r confounding. married  (Veroff, Duvan,  study.  non-patient  f o r screening i n order  have been  happiness  The i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n f i n d i n g s warranted  i n i n c l u d i n g remarried couples i n t h i s The  In c o n t r a s t ,  in marital  between f i r s t time married and remarried couples & Kulka, 1981) .  r e q u i r e d that  had  couples no  than three c h i l d r e n ; and were c u r r e n t l y r e s i d i n g together.  more  45 Once a couple met the i n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a , was  obtained  after  confidentiality gave  informed  the s t u d y s  procedure  discussed.  Couples  1  was  consent,  hours of t h e i r time. the  principle  then  For the f i r s t hour,  investigator  questionnaire,  the DAS  to  was  who  volunteered  discuss  independently  q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses).  independently  completed  M a r i t a l Coping  three  the  Inventory,  Couples  call  to mail  received  to complete  then  took  not to  home and  Scale.  A week  the couples r e c e i v e d a reminder  the questionnaires  stamped envelope provided.  each  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : the PAIR,  and the Communication  a f t e r the i n i t i a l meeting,  three  demographics  couple was t o l d  Couples  other  and  l o c a l couples met with  Scale.  ( i . e . each  e x p l a i n e d and  approximately  these forms one at a time and were i n s t r u c t e d questionnaire  consent  participated  complete  and the KMS  informed  phone  i n the s e l f - a d d r e s s e d and  Upon r e c e i p t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ,  the i n v e s t i g a t o r then mailed a l e t t e r expressing g r a t i t u d e and a package of m a r i t a l addition, the  received  winners.  : movie passes couple);  information t o each  along with the m a r i t a l  couples  determine  enrichment  $100.00  certificates  a  prize  enrichment after  package,  lottery  In  twenty of  was  done to  Prizes i n the l o t t e r y i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g  f o r twelve i n cash  f o r The  Bay  (valued at $8.50  couples given  to  (valued  c e r t i f i c a t e s f o r E a r l ' s Restaurant gift  a  couple.  one  at  $10  couple; each) ;  f o r each four  gift  two  gift  (valued at $20 each); and one  c e r t i f i c a t e f o r The Keg Restaurant  (valued at $25) .  46  Measures This  study  questionnaire  and  demographics asked  i n v o l v e d the five  self-report  questionnaire  to determine  completion  of  On  B) , each  the  spouse  was  gender,  e t h n i c background,  number of years married, number of c h i l d r e n ,  number of years i n  premarital  education,  degree  c o h a b i t a t i o n , years  obtained to date,  age,  demographics  measures.  (see Appendix  h i s or her  one  of  completed  highest  current occupation, current s t a t u s of  employment, parents' occupations and annual income. The  other  five  measures were  multitude of measures presented  selected  after  i n a handbook  reviewing  of measurements  w r i t t e n by T o u l i a t o s , Perlmutter and Straus (1990), Mental  Measurements  Yearbook  (Kramer  review a r t i c l e of survey instruments sourcebook Corcoran two  of  measures  (1994) .  self-report  which was  measures:  Scale  Bergen, Hatch,  by  the  practice  Spanier  Dyadic (1976),  (KMSS) which was  Obiorah,  For the purpose  Conoley,  (Sabatelli,  clinical  the Eleventh  Copeland,  1992),  1988), and by  Fischer  Perceived m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n was  developed  Satisfaction  for  and  the  developed  Meens, and  Kansas  by  a the and  measured by  Adjustment' Scale and  a  (DAS), Marital  Schumm,  Bugaighis  Paff-  (1986).  of t h i s research, openness i n communication  was  d e f i n e d as the amount of d i s c l o s u r e determined by a summation of responses  to  19  items  developed by A n t i l l  of  and  the  Cotton  Communication (1987).  Scale,  Expected  which  was  and p e r c e i v e d  intimacy were measured by the Personal Assessment of Intimacy i n Relationships Olson  in  (PAIR),  1981.  which had  Finally,  been developed  coping  efforts  by  Schaefer  and  were  measured  by  47 Bowman's (1990) M a r i t a l Coping Inventory. were chosen  after  careful  properties,  reputation,  consideration  Overall,  the measures  of t h e i r  psychometric  appropriateness  f o r use w i t h  married  couples, length, and ease of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .  The  Dyadic  The  DAS i s reported to be a r e l i a b l e  self-report  Adjustment  instrument  satisfaction  of  available  (DAS) .  choice  with a r e l a t i o n s h i p  Although at l e a s t are  Scale  and w e l l - v a l i d a t e d  for  (Johnson  measuring  global  & Greenberg,  1985) .  20 s e l f - r e p o r t measures of m a r i t a l  (Birchnell,  1988) more  employed the DAS, t y p i c a l l y and 1988 (Spanier, 1988).  than  with married  1000  Scale  changes  (Baucom & Hoffman, 1986) .  f o r v a r i o u s c u l t u r a l groups i s based  on the Locke  have  Also, v a r i o u s s t u d i e s have used i t i n  DAS has become more widespread  it  studies  couples between 1976  m a r i t a l outcome i n v e s t i g a t i o n s to demonstrate from m a r i t a l therapy  adjustment  now that  resulting  The use of the  i t has been  translated  (Touliatos et a l . , 1990).  and Wallace  (1959) M a r i t a l  (MAS) , i t does not have the sex b i a s present  and i t i s appropriate f o r unmarried  Although Adjustment  i n the MAS,  c o h a b i t i n g couples.  i t s good psychometric p r o p e r t i e s , b r e v i t y ,  Due to  and ease i n s c o r i n g ,  many researchers have recommended the DAS over other instruments (Bornstein  &  Bornstein,  1986; Cohen,  1985; Wincze  &  Carey,  1991) . Spanier (1976) developed the DAS by using a normative of  218 married  (average  (average age being 35.1 years)  age being  30.4 years)  men  group  and 94 d i v o r c e d  and women  from  a  rural  48 university  location.  The f i n a l  scale  i n c l u d e d 32 L i k e r t - s t y l e  items  which  successfully  group  (total  mean DAS score of 114.8) and the d i v o r c e d group  (total  mean  Possible  DAS  score  scores range  of 70.7) from  greater s a t i s f a c t i o n . was  a  total  score  Satisfaction,  differentiated  (Fischer  0 - 151 with  As a r e s u l t and  between  four  and A f f e c t i o n .  married  & Corcoran,  higher  scores  1994). showing  of a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s ,  factors: Cohen  a n a l y z i n g the DAS has improved  the  Consensus,  (1985)  stated  there  Cohesion, that  factor  i t s strength.  In the present study, the DAS was scored as f o l l o w s :  items  1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 were summed to yield 22,  a Dyadic  Consensus t o t a l ;  items  16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,  23, 31, and 32 were summed to y i e l d  a Dyadic  Satisfaction  t o t a l ; items 4, 6, 29, and 30 were summed t o y i e l d a A f f e c t i o n a l Expression t o t a l ;  items  24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 were summed to  y i e l d a Dyadic Cohesion  t o t a l ; and the four s c a l e s ' t o t a l s were  then added to y i e l d a grand  Dyadic  as a second index f o r m a r i t a l  Adjustment  total  score  used  satifaction.  The r e l i a b i l i t y of the DAS t o t a l score was p r e v i o u s l y found to be impressive, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.96 ( T o u l i a t o s et al.,  1990).  The subscales have demonstrated  internal  consistency:  Cohesion  =  0.81, Dyadic  Expression = 0.73. Krauss  Dyadic  Satisfaction  Consensus  =  The study by Carey,  (1993) has r e c e n t l y  0.90,  fair =  to e x c e l l e n t 0.94,  and  Spector,  reliability  Affectional  Lantinga, and  provided more support  test-retest  Dyadic  of  for internal  consistency  and  the  Specifically,  they s t u d i e d a sample of 158 middle-aged  DAS.  men and  49 women, who completed  the DAS on two occasions  weeks, and found  that alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s  the  Expression)  Affectional  Meanwhile s t a b i l i t y Expression) suggested  that  relationship,  coefficients  0.87  to  to 0 . 9 5  (Total  number  0 . 7 0 (for  from  the T o t a l 0.75  from  score).  age, education, and length  ranged  (for  ranged  separated by two  (Affectional  Partial  correlations  of c h i l d r e n ,  of the t e s t - r e t e s t  score).  l e n g t h of  interval  did  not  a f f e c t the s t a b i l i t y of the DAS. As  f a r as v a l i d i t y  constructed  to incorporate content  shown d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y and  d i v o r c e d couples  Finally, of  i s concerned,  the DAS  validity  item  (Fischer  with  the Locke  between  married 1994).  & Corcoran,  the DAS has shown concurrent v a l i d i t y  0.86-0.88  first  and i t has a l s o  by d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g  on each  was  by c o r r e l a t i o n s  and Wallace  (1959)  Marital  Adjustment Scale. Despite  i t s positive  properties,  the DAS  criticisms  of i t have  First,  i s not a  Heyman, Weiss,  confounding  reputation perfect  appeared  the measurement  of  psychometric  measure,  as s e v e r a l  i n the research  literature.  (1990)  and Eddy  and  criticized  process  and  the DAS outcome  for thus  obscuring accuracy i n the r e l a t i o n between m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and  behavioral  interaction marital different  or  changes.  communication  satisfaction from  By  process, dynamics  i n the f u t u r e .  outcome,  which  suggested  which  can t h i n k  of  can i n f l u e n c e  However,  i s a reflection  s a t i s f a c t i o n a t a s p e c i f i c point i n time. Heyman et a l . (1990)  one  process  of a  is  couple's  The data presented by  that only 2 0%  of the v a r i a n c e i n  50 the DAS r e f l e c t e d a spouse's m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n at the time of the measurement. There i s a debate i n the l i t e r a t u r e  as to whether or not  the DAS measures the unidimensional construct of s a t i s f a c t i o n or several  dimensions of adjustment.  Spanier's the  multidimensional model by f i n d i n g  four  DAS  factors  or  finding  s a t i s f a c t i o n and cohesion f a c t o r s Eddy  et a l . (1991)  measure s a t i s f a c t i o n measures  the  construct) . DAS  data  Most s t u d i e s have  believe  that  of  s i m i l a r to  replicated  consensus,  (Eddy, Heyman, & Weiss, 1991) . the DAS  (a unidimensional  process  factors  supported  i s not designed  to  construct) but r a t h e r i t  adjustment  (a  multidimensional  As evidence f o r t h i s contention, they r e p o r t e d that  was  better  represented  by  a  multidimensional  r a t h e r than a s i n g l e - f a c t o r model s i n c e " S a t i s f a c t i o n "  model  accounted  f o r 19% - 25% of the variance i n the DAS. On the other hand, researchers Laplante, and Wright the  DAS  form  unidimensional  a  such  as Sabourin,  Lussier,  (1990) have found that the four f a c t o r s of  higher-order  hypothesis.  factor,  Moreover,  thus one  supporting  could  argue  the that  adjustment i s defined as accomodation of a husband and wife to each other at a given time does  not i n v o l v e  proponents  of  a  (Locke & Wallace,  couple's  attitude  the multidimensional  1959) but that  or p e r c e p t i o n .  view  claim  that  adjustment measures have items that are very s i m i l a r , of  the unidimentional  report  measures  happiness  of  correlate  hypothesis marital  highly  believe  that  adjustment,  with  each  other  this While  several  proponents  because  satisfaction, (Schumm  et  selfand al.,  5 1 1986), what  i s measured i s the  satisfaction  (Gottman,  existence  four  For  of  example,  1990).  factors  Kazak,  couple's Many  perception  researchers  and  the  robustness  Jarrnas,  and  Thompson  of m a r i t a l  question  of  the  the  factors.  (1982)  criticize  Spanier and Thompson's (1982) study on the grounds that the subscales  were  presented  as  robust  scales  f a c t o r s were s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e l a t e d . (Sharpley & Cross, weighting  1983)  s o l u t i o n proposed by  Jarmas,  and  general  pattern  similar  to  those  appeared  as  a  variance  compared  et  Norton,  Spanier  item of  Spanier  stronger to  loadings  factor  the  on  (1976), by  the  DAS  criticize  the  i n 1976.  that  the  even  four  and  marital  though  factors  Consensus  accounting  f o r 74.5%  factors,  each  the were  factor of  the  of  which  f o r l e s s than 10% of the v a r i a n c e . Consequently',  Kazak  a l . (1988) encourage researchers to keep such  mind  Kazak,  the  three weaker  three  articles  which presented  S n i t z e r (1988) f u r t h e r found of  though  Also, they review  system as i n a p p r o p r i a t e . Meanwhile they  factor analytic  accounted  1982;  even  four  use  the  DAS  satisfaction  as  a  measure  dimension  and  for assesing not  use  the  criticisms one  in  general  subscales  as  i n d i c e s of s a t i s f a c t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , Kazak et a l . (1988) c r i t i c i z e addressing heterogeneity  i n the  gender d i f f e r e n c e s were not satisfaction. satisfaction for  However,  aspects)  samples s t u d i e d .  accounted  that  i s more a f u n c t i o n of cohesion  i s more important  For  f o r not example,  for i n assessing marital  f i n d i n g s suggest  women general s a t i s f a c t i o n  the DAS  (independent  i n men's  data,  or consensus  while  of other  relational  (Kazack et a l . , 1988). As  additional  52 support argued  f o r the that DAS  Caucasians,  and  heterogeneity  issue,  Casas  norms were problematic Schlesinger  and  Ortiz  (1985)  i n generalizing  to  (1979) reported that m a r i t a l  nonstage  and presence of c h i l d r e n were not considered even though m a r i t a l satisfaction  seems to change across  the  Eddy et a l . (1991) s t a t e that Spanier's i n c l u d e d d i v o r c e d and  life  cycle.  Finally,  (1976) samples have a l s o  separated people  so that g e n e r a l i z i n g  the  data to married couples becomes problematic. Two  other concerns  regarding the DAS  the r e p o r t by Kazack et a l . (1988). the DAS  could be l i m i t e d because i t was  discrimination experience seek  First,  between married  extreme  counseling  distress  and  i n d i c a t e b e t t e r adjustment,  in  clinical  utility  of  v a l i d a t e d based  Second,  to  persons,  people  who  although  higher  who  w i l l always agree about sex, f r i e n d s and r e c r e a t i o n ,  Frazier,  and  Bowden  rather  greater agreement  than  adjusted.  deal on estimates of frequency and degrees  i n v o l v e more c o g n i t i v e and emotional  scores  and  focuses  are  Roach, a  great  of d i f f e r e n c e .  This  because estimates recall  That  i n individuals  Finally,  (1981) c l a i m that the DAS  .can be viewed as a setback  may  they can a l s o be problematic.  reflect  the  typically  higher  enmeshed  on who  is,  possibly  scores may  raised  divorced  compared  in clinics.  were a l s o  of  dynamics than  frequency  may  attitudinal  or  responses.  Despite c r i t i c i s m s of the DAS, the present study because i t was b r i e f , easy  i t was  selected  f o r use  reputed to be r e l i a b l e ,  in  valid,  to administer, easy to score, and a popular measure  used with married couples i n many s t u d i e s .  53  The  Kansas  Marital  Satisfaction  Scale  (KMSS) .  In l i g h t of reported flaws i n the DAS and the p o t e n t i a l f o r confounding, as  the Kansas M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale was a l s o used  an a d d i t i o n a l measure  f o r the dependent  variable.  The  advantage of using two such measures i s that one can compensate for  the drawbacks of the other.  responses t o both  C o r r e l a t i o n s done between the  s c a l e s may show convergent v a l i d i t y .  I t was  hoped that using two measures of s a t i s f a c t i o n would provide more support while  f o r the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y  compensating  of data  f o r some of the weaknesses  i n this  evident  study  i n each  measure. The KMSS i s a 3 item, L i k e r t type s e l f - r e p o r t that has adequate r e l i a b i l i t y .  questionnaire  I t can be used with a l l married  populations and i t has the advantage of not being as long as the other  measures  of m a r i t a l  satisfaction.  I t also  has the  advantages of being easy t o administer and score. In the present study, summed  to y i e l d  possible greater  a  total  responses t o the three questions were marital  range of 3 - 21) such satisfaction.  according  to  relationship,  :  satisfaction that  higher  The KMSS measures  marriage  as  an  score  scores  marital  institution,  and the character of one's partner.  r e f l e c t the n o t i o n that there are conceptual  the d i f f e r e n c e s  i n norm  means  a  indicated  satisfaction the m a r i t a l These  items  d i f f e r e n c e s between  questions on spouses, marriage and the r e l a t i o n s h i p . that  (with  f o r each  I t appears item  would  54 contradict  the p o s s i b i l i t y  that these items a r e t h e same i t e m  worded i n t h r e e d i f f e r e n t ways (Schumrn e t a l . ,  1986).  A l t h o u g h t h i s i s a s h o r t measure, Cronbach's a l p h a has been r e p o r t e d as 0.81 - 0.98, w i t h most s t u d i e s r e p o r t i n g an a l p h a i n the  0.90 and above range.  F o r example,  recently, the following  a l p h a v a l u e s were r e p o r t e d as: 0.96 f o r wives (Jeong, Bollman, & Schumrn, 1992); 0.96 f o r husbands (Hendrix & A n e l l i , for  wives  1993); 0.98  (Tubman, 1993); 0.95 f o r husbands and 0.96 f o r wives  (Chang, Schumrn, Coulson, Bollman, & J u r i c h , 1994); and 0.94 f o r husbands and 0.96 f o r wives  (White, Stahmann, & Furrow,  As f o r t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y ,  1994).  t h e r e have been r e p o r t s o f 0.71  over a t e n week p e r i o d f o r wives  (Mitchell,  N e w e l l , & Schumrn,  1983), and 0.62 f o r wives vs 0.72 f o r husbands over s i x months (Eggeman, Moxley, & Schumrn, 1985).  A Korean v e r s i o n showed an  a l p h a o f 0.93. Furthermore, a c o r r e l a t i o n was found w i t h income (0.42)  and w i t h  (Touliatos et a l . , In  terms  investigate concept,  the w i f e ' s  i n English  of f a c t o r i a l  as s o c i a l  validity, that  studies  similar  desirability,  were  scales  rather  example,  found  that,  Canfield, in  done t o  measure one than  concepts such as m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n o r p a r e n t a l For  (0.36)  1990).  the p o s s i b i l i t y  such  proficiency  separate  satisfaction.  Schumrn, Swihart, and E g g e r i c h s  husbands'  responses,  the  KMSS  (1990)  factored  d i f f e r e n t l y from p a r e n t a l / f a m i l y items.  I n 1994, Chang e t a l .  found t h a t the KMSS f a c t o r e d d i f f e r e n t l y  from v a r i o u s  s a t i s f a c t i o n items and t h r e e s c a l e s of the M a r i t a l I n v e n t o r y items responded t o by husbands and w i v e s .  parental  Communication  55 With found of  respect  to concurrent  validity,  the KMS  scale  to c o r r e l a t e more s t r o n g l y with the s a t i s f a c t i o n  the DAS  (Schumm  than  with  et a l . ,  1986).  c o r r e l a t e d more with (0.83)  the DAS found  that  Status  the other  three  Also,  subscales  the KMS  (Schumm et a l . , 1986).  the KMS  Inventory.  scale  -0.50  i n 1994,  Finally,  significantly (0.91)  Index  In 1992,  correlated  Jeong  with  White  subscale  of the DAS  scale  the Q u a l i t y of Marriage  was  than  et  al.  the M a r i t a l  et  a l . found  c o r r e l a t i o n s of 0.80 - 0.84 between the KMS s c a l e and the LockeWallace MAT. As  less  research has been done to  compare d i v o r c e d and i n t a c t couples.  However, Moxley, Eggeman,  and  for criterion validity,  (1987)  Schumm  found  that mean KMSS scores  of husbands and  wives e n t e r i n g a pre-divorce programs were much lower Also, Tubman (1991,  KMSS means.  1993)  than usual  found that wives married  to a l c o h o l dependent husbands had s i g n i g i c a n t l y lower KMSS means that wives i n a comparison group. F i n a l l y , construct v a l i d i t y has been researched f o r the KMS s c a l e by c o r r e l a t i o n s between the KMSS and other measures. example c o n s t r u c t s with which c o r r e l a t i o n s were conducted positive  regard  (0.42-0.70)  Cohesion  (0.42)  and Independence a l . , 1983);  (Mitchell  et  (Bugaighis  et a l . , 1983);  wives  (0.30)  et a l . , 1 9 9 0 ) ;  (Touliatos (0.19)  locus total  (Grover et a l . , 1984);  assessed  of  family  Temporal  used w i t h both wives and husbands (0.29 - 0.87) 1985);  and emotional  intimacy  i n wives  were: wives'  by Moos' FES (0.18-0.31)  control income  For  a c c o r d i n g to  Conflict  Scales  (Eggeman et a l . ,  (0.77)  vs  emotional  56 intimacy  i n husbands  (0.32)  Excellent  concurrent  validity  significantly  correlated  (Hatch,  James,  has  been  the  Dyadic  with  and  Schumm,  shown i n  that  Adjustment  1986). the  KMS  Scale  and  the Q u a l i t y of Marriage  Index.  Moreover, t h i s measure has  used  therapy  from  to  differentiate  controling  for  social  nontherapy  desirability,  income,  couples age,  been while  education,  d u r a t i o n of marriage and number of k i d s . A  disadvantage  to  p o s s i b i l i t y that the KMS are  related  to  dissatisfied)  using  KMS  Scale  s c a l e ' s use of response  satisfaction  might  the  yield  lies  the  c a t e g o r i e s that  (extremely  satisfied  spurious  correlation  a  in  to  extremely  with  other  measures w i t h s i m i l a r response format by means of common methods variance  (Schumm  et  a l . , 1986).  Also,  another  u s i n g the KMS  s c a l e has been given a t t e n t i o n by  colleagues.  They  response al.,  distribution  1983b).  global  whole  concerned  about  these  Overall,  the  issues KMS  aspect of m a r i t a l q u a l i t y  with  the  to show skewness and  However,  measures.  measure one a  are  considerable  internal  problem  with  Schumm and  his  tendency  kurtosis  typically scale  seems  for  (Schumm et  confront a l l to  directly  (marital s a t i s f a c t i o n ) consistency  the  and  as  validity  d e s p i t e being much shorter than other s c a l e s .  The  Communication  Antill  and Cotton  Scale. (1987) developed  the Communication  Scale  as p a r t of an omnibus questionnaire designed to assess amount of self-disclosure.  I t i s a 20 item s e l f - r e p o r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e with  some items  on  based  those used  by Jourard  and  Lasakow  (1958).  57 The  first  Positive  12 items  tap 2 scales  aspects about  about o n e s e l f  oneself  (6 items) .  which  measure  (6 items)  d i s c l o s u r e of  and Negative  An example of a p o s i t i v e  aspects  item i s "My  personal successes i n any sphere of my l i f e " and an example of a negative these  item i s "My main  items  "Everything"  are on with  a  worries  and f e a r s " .  four-point  an a d d i t i o n a l  scale  anchor  Responses to  from  "Nothing"  marked  "N/A".  to The  remaining 8 items are part of 2 s c a l e s which measure d i s c l o s u r e of  Anger (4 items) and Sexual Likes and D i s l i k e s  example of an anger  item i s "Do you f e e l  anger and i r r i t a t i o n s ? " you  free  a b l e t o communicate t o your  spouse  your  "Always"  scores  with  show  an a d d i t i o n a l  more  self-disclosure  instrument  appears  age,  or without  with  anchor  t o be s u i t a b l e children,  on  An  t o express your  and an example of a sexual item i s  Responses t o these items are on a f i v e - p o i n t to  (4 items).  sexual  dislikes?"  s c a l e from  marked  "N/A".  these  scales.  f o r use with  "Are  "Never" Higher This  couples of any  and a minimum 7th grade  level  reading a b i l i t y . For  the present study, the 19 items  of the Communication  Scale could not be simply summed t o y i e l d a r e l i a b l e t o t a l disclosure Available" chose  this  Disclosure  value. anchor  of  the presence  i n the Communication Scale,  response  often  may have  shown  score, which would not t r u l y  self-disclosure. responses)  Because  were  were responded  Thus summed.  only  valid  In a d d i t i o n ,  a  of  the "Not  participants low T o t a l  reflect  responses the f i r s t  self  who Self-  the amount of (i.e.  numeric  twelve  t o on a four-point s c a l e while the l a s t  items  8 items  58 were  responded  inconsistent  to on  scaling,  accurate score. the f o l l o w i n g  a  five-point  summation  valid  of items  Because  would  t o each  was done according to the suggestions  (excluding item thirteen) responses  to y i e l d  1996):  (1)  of R. Conry  and (2)  the average  administered  to 108  i n t a c t married  couples  The couples  to 65 years,  middle  were p r i m a r i l y  from 2 months t o 42 years. been p r e v i o u s l y married  from 19  ranged i n ages  class,  and married  Eleven percent  anywhere  of t h i s sample had  and the average number of c h i l d r e n was  f i f t y - t w o percent were employed. The couples'  ranged from possession of a highschool diploma, diploma  first  i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n  Of the males, ninety percent were employed while  technical  self-  the Communication Scale was  area of Sydney, A u s t r a l i a .  females  from  score.  With respect to sampling,  two.  were  by the number of  the previous step was m u l t i p l i e d by 19 to o b t a i n a t o t a l disclosure  an  item,  a l l responses  and d i v i d e d  an average;  of the  not y i e l d  Therefore, to give equal weight  (personal communication, J u l y 30, summed  scale.  beyond  highschool,  or a  i n the  education  a c e r t i f i c a t e or  university  degree.  Other couples e i t h e r d i d not complete highschool o r were working toward a degree. generalizability  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s sample may of f i n d i n g s  limit  somewhat and so c a u t i o n should be  e x e r c i s e d i n making i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Empirical alpha scale), the  evidence  f o r males 0.46  alpha  on  to be 0.85  reliability  has  (Positive  scale),  (Anger s c a l e ) , and 0.77  values  were  0.85  shown 0.87  (Sex s c a l e ) .  (Positive  scale),  Cronbach's (Negative  F o r females  0.85  (Negative  59 scale),  0.37  (Anger s c a l e ) ,  and 0.84  (Sex s c a l e ) .  the t h i r t e e n t h item from the Anger scale, r e p o r t e d as improving Therefore,  By  the alpha values were  to 0.64 f o r males and 0.70  i n the present study,  removing  the t h i r t e e n t h  f o r females. item was  also  excluded from the a n a l y s i s . Intercorrelations  among the four  disclosure  scales  ranged  from 0.45 - 0.83 (males) and 0.48 - 0.78 (females) w i t h h i g h e s t correlations  between P o s i t i v e and Negative  investigators  concluded  specifically Disclosure  linked scale  that  disclosure  to a c e r t a i n  (which  combines  area  scales.  Hence, the  i s general  so they  formed  a l l 19 items)  and not a  Total  and found the  alpha values to be 0.91 f o r males and 0.93 f o r females.  Further  analyses,  yielded  which  used  the four  subscales  s i m i l a r r e s u l t s and supported the approach  separately,  of u s i n g the s i n g l e  scale. A shortcoming of  empirical  the  initial  need  i n using the Communication Scale i s the l a c k  research on i t s psychometric indications  for scientific  are p o s i t i v e .  research  using  properties;  although  At the same time, the the Communication  Scale  appears  t o be another strong reason f o r i t s use i n the present  study.  The Communication Scale was chosen mainly because,  review  of  measures,  no  reliable,  self-report  measuring  self-disclosure  separate  concept  communication,  was  other  short,  communication (between identified.  appropriate,  inventory married  highly  specifically  couples)  Other  such as the R e l a t i o n a l Dimensions  in a  as  measures  a of  Instrument and  Primary Communication Inventory, do not e x p l i c i t l y  c l a i m that a  60 purpose  of  the  disclosure. 1970) and  has has  The only  been  marital  is  Marital  s i x items  or  assess  specifically  Communication  as  being  Inventory  greatly so  (Schumm and  with  it  not  Figley,  S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e Questionnaire  contained  over  disclosure of  the  self-disclosure. 400  statements  statements.  abovementioned  Communication  Scale  Taylor and  Given  Altman's  combining  the various  communication  appeared  to be  other  sole  Jourard has  been  independent (1966) s c a l e  intimacy  and  shortcomings  inventories,  the  either a  1979) . (1958)  o f t e n c r i t i c i z e d as l a c k i n g c o r r e l a t i o n s with measures of  anxiety  loaded is  self-  (Bienvenu,  self-disclosure  conventionality  self-disclosure  Lasakow's  to  that measure  criticized  adjustment  measure of and  measure  selfi n each  using  questionnaire  that  the was  s h o r t e s t to administer, e a s i e s t to score, and r e l i a b l e enough to s p e c i f i c a l l y measure amount of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e .  Personal Inventory The 1981 PAIR,  Assessment  of  PAIR  Inventory  acronym  Relationships, intimacy:  in  Relationships  (PAIR). was  created  a f t e r an extensive review an  Intimacy  for  Personal  i s used to provide  emotional,  recreational.  of  social,  Schaefer  literature  one's a t t i t u d e about marriage but Intimacy,  and  on  Assessment  Intimacy  information on sexual,  The  five  types  intellectual,  looks  in The in of and  s c a l e which i s  PAIR i s not  rather  Olson  intimacy.  of  There i s a l s o a C o n v e n t i o n a l i t y  designed to serve as a l i e s c a l e .  relationship.  by  at  according to the authors,  a measure of a  couple's  i s more than  61 s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and c o n s i s t s of closeness and s h a r i n g . individuals  can  describe  their  relationship  Married  from  two  p e r s p e c t i v e s : how they c u r r e n t l y p e r c e i v e i t (perceived) and how they would l i k e t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p item  Likert  response  style  self-report  to be  (expected) .  questionnaire  uses  T h i s 60-  a  5  point  format where subjects i n d i c a t e the extent t o which  agree or disagree with 10 items  f o r each of s i x s u b s c a l e s .  they The  inventory takes 2 0 to 30 minutes to complete and the i n d i v i d u a l items i n subscales are then t o t a l e d to get scores f o r each area. These t o t a l s are then  converted  i n t o percentage  scores  (with a  range from 0 - 96). The items pool  i n t h i s inventory were obtained from an o r i g i n a l  of 75 items  which were given to 192 n o n - c l i n i c a l  married  couples married between one and 37 years and ranging  from  60 years o f age.  enrichment  weekends,  with  Data was c o l l e c t e d from 12 separate 12-20  couples  Items were s e l e c t e d based factor  i n each  on a number of c r i t e r i a .  analyses were done and only the items  loading  on  the s c a l e s and  c r i t e r i a were r e t a i n e d . to  participating  correlate  other s c a l e s .  higher  with  those  that  met  More s p e c i f i c a l l y , their  own  with the  21 to  weekend. Item and  best  item  factor  analysis  items were r e q u i r e d  a priori  scale  Loadings of items on t h e i r primary  than  with  factors  ranged  the PAIR'S 36 raw p e r c e i v e d  scores  from 0.21 to 0.78. For the present and (for  36 raw expected details  Schaefer,  on  study,  scores had to be subjected t o c a l c u l a t i o n s  scoring  refer  to  the manual  1981) i n order to obtain a t o t a l  by  Olson  p e r c e i v e d and  and total  expected  score  f o r each  of f i v e  scales:  r e c r e a t i o n a l , s o c i a l and emotional. t h i s study,  sexual,  intellectual,  However, f o r the purpose of  only the score f o r the Emotional  Intimacy  s c a l e was  used i n the r e g r e s s i o n analyses. With (1981)  regards  found  t o convergent  that,  except  subscales had p o s i t i v e Locke-Wallace  of  Jourard's  were  Adjustment  and couples.  of  0.13  Scale  an adapted  0.31, which  Olson  a l l other  0.30 w i t h the  responses  Scales along with -  and  scale,  greater than  Using  Self-Disclosure  correlations  Schaefer  f o r the s p i r i t u a l  correlations  Marital  husbands, wives,  validity,  made  by  v e r s i o n of one the PAIR,  may  point  there  t o the  p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and intimacy while possibly  supporting the f i n d i n g  too much s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e PAIR  subscale  was  c o r r e l a t e with  can be damaging.  found  to  In a d d i t i o n ,  positively  and  the cohesion and expressiveness  Family Environment Scale. scales  i n the general l i t e r a t u r e  that every  significantly  s c a l e s on Moos'  In contrast, the C o n t r o l and C o n f l i c t  showed negative c o r r e l a t i o n s with  the PAIR'S  Emotional,  I n t e l l e c t u a l and R e c r e a t i o n a l s c a l e s . As f o r r e l i a b i l i t y , Schaefer alphas  and Olson were  (Social),  (1981).  found  0.77  (Recreational).  no t e s t - r e t e s t However,  f o r each (Sexual),  The r e l i a b i l i t y  were  the f o l l o w i n g  scale: 0.70  analyses  0.75  done by  significant  (Emotional),  (Intellectual),  and  0.71 0.70  of the C o n v e n t i o n a l i t y s c a l e  was found t o be 0.80. Some shortcomings manual i s m i s s i n g  i n using  the PAIR  information on how each  do e x i s t . item  loads  The PAIR on other  63 factors.  Also,  information means and contend  the  does  not  contain  (although Schaefer and Olson's 1981 standard  that  inventory  manual  deviations  normative  because  it  f o r 192  information is  the  any  article  couples).  is  not  normative  The  relevant  discrepancy  presents  between  authors to  this  ideal  and  p e r c e i v e d intimacy on each dimension f o r husbands and wives that are important. the  1992  Eleventh  levelled  at  discrepancy than  Furthermore, i n a review of the PAIR by Wolf i n  the  the  Mental  PAIR manual's  scores.  statement  between perceptions also  reminds  Measurements lack of  Yearbook, guidance  criticism for  evaluating  Not much i s s a i d about i n t e r p r e t a t i o n that  a  discrepancy  of  of husband and wife  researchers  of  the  less  i s not  than  5  other points  important.  unreliability  is  Wolf  of  discrepancy  little  evidential  scores. Despite  the  fact  information a v a i l a b l e , f o r t h i s study. review of  the  there  PAIR i s s t i l l  into  and  account  research  score.  intimacy results  the measure of  literature,  (by means of  adequate psychometric p r o p e r t i e s , and and  is  More  importantly,  the  this  study  will  in  way  social  l i e scale) , i t  i t espouses  some  i t takes  i t i s easy to  that i s adopted f o r t h i s study. of  choice  I t has been c a r e f u l l y planned on the b a s i s of a  theoretical  desirability  that  the  administer  definition  I t i s hoped that remedy  the  e m p i r i c a l information i n the l i t e r a t u r e on the PAIR.  has  lack  of the of  64 The  Marital  Coving  Inventory.  F i n a l l y , the l a s t measure to be used Inventory, which was developed self-report couples Conflict, interest, scales, items  by Bowman i n 1990.  questionnaire measures  could  use t o deal  with  five  kinds  recurring  I n t r o s p e c t i v e Self-blame, and Avoidance.  i s the M a r i t a l  T h i s 64 item  of coping  marital  Positive  Based on l i t e r a t u r e ,  initially  developed  to measure  (actions, thoughts or f e e l i n g s ) . data  from  the  final  solution  scale, and  a  an  factor item  analysis  analysis  c o n d i t i o n s f o r use i n the s c a l e s . loadings Coping  greater Inventory  than  previous  coping  64  couples, 71  coping  efforts  a n a l y s i s of  were r e f i n e d .  yielded  the f i v e - f a c t o r  identified  items  meeting  retained. items,  The f i n a l  based  on  Marital  a  normative  p o p u l a t i o n of 368 p a r t i c i p a n t s from the Vancouver lower region.  Although  with an a f f i l i a t i o n  sampling  initially  to a college  mainland  i n c l u d e d married  or u n i v e r s i t y ,  people  an a d d i t i o n a l  random sample was r e c r u i t e d t o make data more r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . randomization  technique  On  Those items which had f a c t o r  0.4 were  contains  problems: Self-  Upon item-response  three consecutive versions, items  which  Approach,  interviews and questionnaires with married were  Coping  was used  with  the Greater  A  Vancouver  d i r e c t o r y t o i d e n t i f y households where a married couple would be residing.  The combined  sample may have had h i g h e r  l e v e l s of  education according t o Bowman. In the present study coding of the MCI began w i t h  reverse  coding of items 3, 17, 21, 24, 50, and 57. The response  t o each  of these  items  had t o be subtracted from  6 i n order  to obtain  the reversed value to a value of 5). 43,  (such that a response  Next, items 4, 9, 12, 16, 19, 27, 29, 34, 39,  46, 52, 56, 61, and 64 were  Approach score.  the  Positive  summed  to y i e l d  Items f o r each of the other  a l s o summed to o b t a i n t o t a l scores to Bowman, 1990) .  of 1 would be changed  Positive  four s c a l e s were  (for d e t a i l s on s c o r i n g r e f e r  For the purpose of t h i s study,  Approach  a  s c a l e score was used  however, only  i n the r e g r e s s i o n  analyses. In terms of r e l i a b i l i t y , (Conflict),  0.88  Cronbach's alpha values were: 0.88  (Self-blame),  0.82  ( S e l f - i n t e r e s t ) , and 0.77 (Avoidance). correlations scores:  between  final  0.94 ( C o n f l i c t ) ,  scale  0.95  (Positive  Approach),  There were a l s o adequate  scores  and o r i g i n a l  Bowman  identified  factor  ( I n t r o s p e c t i v e Self-blame),  ( P o s i t i v e Approach), 0.86 ( S e l f - i n t e r e s t ) , and 0.89 Finally,  0.82  significant  0.94  (Avoidance).  correlations  between  coping s c a l e scores and g l o b a l r a t i n g s of m a r i t a l happiness and problem  severity.  happiness but  More  correlated  n e g a t i v e l y with  positively Conflict  (-0.40), S e l f - i n t e r e s t marital  problem  c o r r e l a t i o n s with  severity  (-0.27),  ratings,  four of the coping  Self-blame  Self-interest  (0.36).  together,  with  and  she found Positive  (0.52),  that m a r i t a l  Approach  Introspective  (-0.42), and Avoidance  Introspective  years  specifically,  there efforts:  Positive  Self-blame  (-0.23). were  of  participants  r e l a t i o n s h i p s with coping e f f o r t s .  bore  (0.33),  (-0.17) and  F i n a l l y , Bowman found that sex, age  As f o r  significant  Conflict  Approach  (0.23)  number of significant  E m p i r i c a l evidence regarding the psychometric p r o p e r t i e s i s currently  being  inventory,  collected.  little  Because  this  is a  relatively  evidence e x i s t s i n the research l i t e r a t u r e  i t s merits and drawbacks but, on the whole, the measure to  be  promising.  use.  There  are,  few  remains  e s t a b l i s h e d , among  information.  properties  administering  the  observing  spouses'  the  of  MCI  that  after  empirical  levels  Self-interest  over  Coping  negative  significant  of C o n f l i c t  levels  greater than 0.60  first  year  this  repeating  poses  a  question  They  of  and  results: levels  higher  of  levels  satisfaction.  reliability  for a l l  f o r husbands as w e l l as However, a spouse's  c o n s i s t e n t with the partner's coping  and  by  affectivity  s i x months, while wives'  f o r wives thus showing s t a b i l i t y over time. not  and  p r e d i c t e d higher  lower  the  spouses,  longitudinal  They a l s o found that the median t e s t - r e t e s t  coping was  newlywed  a problem,  for  of  Inventory  to 104 spouses s i x months l a t e r .  predicted their  r e l i a b l e subscales was  pieces  (1994) evaluated  childless,  d i s c u s s i o n of  there were  satisfaction  Marital  12 0  controlling  problem s e v e r i t y , husbands' higher  the  to  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the MCI  of  missing  Recently, Cohan and Bradbury  psychometric  their  other  and  problems with i t s  to d i s c r i m i n a t e between c l i n i c a l and n o n c l i n i c a l couples  found  reliability  a  appears  ability  be  test-retest  however,  on  the measure's  to  First,  new  regarding  how  during a  the  dyad's  coping p a t t e r n s develop over time. Second,  although  this  measure  yielded  f a c t o r s , the l i t e r a t u r e on coping suggests  five  types  that there i s y e t  of no  c l e a r answer as to whether coping e f f o r t s can be c a t e g o r i z e d i n  terms of s p e c i f i c means, goals, functions or e f f e c t s . to  the study  by Folkman  assessed  coping  efforts  empirical  r a t h e r than  addition,  Cohan  and Lazarus as means  rational  and Bradbury  Self-Blame  correlated  Self-Blame  subscale  attribute  this  with  score  (1980),  rather  Bowman's  than  ends  study  and by  s c a l e - c o n s t r u c t i o n methods. (1994)  found  depressive  to  that  symptoms  correlated  relationship  Compared  with  the  BDI  Conflict and  In and  that the  scores.  Self-Blame  They  subscale's  measurement of negative a f f e c t i v e r e a c t i o n s (such as f e e l i n g s of depression,  failure,  and anxiety)  rather than  coping, which i s  d e f i n e d as a c t i o n s i n response to a problem. T h i r d , Cohan and Bradbury (1994) c r i t i c i z e d Bowman's study  f o r not  subscales  analyzing  f o r husbands  (1990) obtained  data  the  internal  and wives  from  consistency  separately.  individual  spouses  (1990)  of the  Also,  Bowman  r a t h e r than  both  spouses i n a couple and could not determine whether one spouse's responses is  c o v a r i e d with the responses  important  of the other spouse.  to analyze the coping responses  a t a dyadic  It level  s i n c e one spouse's coping may depend i n part on the p e r c e p t i o n s and  efforts  criticisms,  of  the  other's  coping.  Cohan and Bradbury's  study  Based looked  on  these  two  at reports  from  both spouses i n a couple and was intended to i n v e s t i g a t e whether gender  differences  occurred  for coefficient  alpha  on  MCI  subscales before accepting that husbands and wives d i f f e r e d i n their  reports  differences  of  were  coping. not l a r g e .  g r e a t e r use of C o n f l i c t  They  found  that  The r e s u l t  and Self-Blame  that  than  overall  gender  wives  reported  husbands  d i d "was  68  not  an  artifact  (Cohan & husbands  of  scale  Bradbury, and  1  reliabilities  differing  1994) » Nevertheless,  wives  data  1  should  be  they  by  gender."  recommended  analyzed  that  separately  for  gender d i f f e r e n c e s . With regards to i n t e r n a l consistency, Cohan and study  found  that  for  both  husbands  coefficient  alpha was  s c a l e s , but  the alpha value was  low  f o r husbands and  0.34  once  again  coefficient  a  of  results  0.43  were  sample.  (for husbands) interpreted  The  as  subscale  newlywed  At Time 2, most s c a l e s  couples  of  0.76  being  could  a  have  measuring avoidance  by  means of  the  the  self-report  These  interpreted  Alternatively,  or  alpha  the  longer.  items  for  f u n c t i o n of  items d i f f e r e n t l y from other couples who scale  0.86  ( f o r wives).  Avoidance  the  -  subscale showed an  0.30  possibly  1,  f o r the Avoidance  alpha  and  Time  f o r most  f o r wives).  and  at 0.92  husbands and wives while the Avoidance value  wives  adequate, between 0.78  (0.55  showed  and  Bradbury's  were married difficulty  could  in  e x p l a i n the  low c o e f f i c i e n t alpha values. Finally, the  Marital  covariation expressions Conflict  Cohan and Coping between  Inventory the  which were  covaried  Bradbury  is  somewhat  subscales  observed.  positively  n e g a t i v e l y with whining  (1994) s t a t e  and For  with  that v a l i d i t y supported  specific  example, anger  during a d i s c u s s i o n .  in light  the  affective  in  husbands,  expression, In wives,  Blame c o v a r i e d p o s i t i v e l y with sadness expression. of evidence are e s p e c i a l l y important  by  of  but Self-  Such p i e c e s  of the  fact  that  s e l f - r e p o r t i n g and problem-solving d i s c u s s i o n share no method of  69  variance.  In  spite  of  investigate  psychometric  the  above  preliminary  properties,  there  is a  efforts  to  shortage  of  e m p i r i c a l evidence and caution must be e x e r c i s e d i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s of the M a r i t a l Coping Inventory.  Nevertheless, t h i s  inventory  reliability  was  selected  because  were good; the measure was  the i n i t i a l  developed  values  using p a r t i c i p a n t s  from  Vancouver ( B r i t i s h Columbia); the measure was b r i e f ; i t was  easy  to administer and score; i t was the only measure found t o assess coping  efforts;  and more  research i s needed t o i d e n t i f y i t s  psychometric p r o p e r t i e s .  Data  Analysis Once  scored  a l l data  had  been  by the p r i n c i p l e  collected,  investigator.  questionnaires  were  For a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s ,  responses t o every item on each of the s i x q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were entered  along  with  relevant  subscale  M i c r o s o f t Works spreadsheet. SPSS  f o r Windows  appropriate  for  i n order testing  or  total  scores  in a  The data were then imported to  the  perform  statistical  hypotheses  and  into  analyses  exploring  the  questions. On coded  the  as  respondent  1  demographics  questionnaire,  i f the respondent not Caucasian  Caucasian,  and  2  was  i f the the  certificate;  (2)  highschool diploma;  (3) postsecondary diploma / c e r t i f i c a t e ;  (4)  Bachelor's  and  assigned were:  degree;  (eg. A s i a n ) .  heritage  For degree,  numbers  was  was  ethnic  (1) elementary  (5) graduate  school  or  professional  degree.  With respect to occupation, the f o l l o w i n g numbers were assigned:  70 (1) homemaker, collar  (2) student;  (clerical);  (5) p r o f e s s i o n a l  employed business owners; The  annual  (3) blue c o l l a r  individual  (4)  white  (6)  self-  (manual);  / managerial;  (7) r e t i r e d or on a pension program.  income was coded as: (1) i f i t was l e s s  than $10,000; (2) i f i t was $10 - $30, 000; (3) i f i t was $30 $50,000; than  (4)  i f i t was $50 - $70,000; and (5) i f i t was more  $70,000.  deviations) variables The bivariate  Descriptive  were c a l c u l a t e d  statistics  (means  and  f o r a l l of the above  standard  demographic  as w e l l as key v a r i a b l e s . DAS  and KMSS  scores  were  c o r r e l a t i o n computation  sufficiently  related  i n order  subjected  to  a  to examine whether to create  a  Pearson  they  single  were  marital  s a t i s f a c t i o n index. The  responses  satisfaction, variables  of  local  self-disclosure,  were  participants.  compared A  participants positive  t o responses  single  sample  f o r the  coping,  made by  t-test  was  and  marital intimacy  "out of town"  used  t o examine  whether there were any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . The wives' and  normality  marital  intimacy  assumption  was  checked  f o r husbands' and  satisfaction, self-disclosure,  variables  using  a Lilliefors  positive  test  coping,  of n o r m a l i t y .  Next, c o e f f i c i e n t alphas were computed f o r each of the measures used i n order t o examine r e l i a b i l i t y . Relationships  between  computing  correlations.  calculated  whenever  encountered or,  variables  were  Spearman c o r r e l a t i o n a  variables  ranked  determined coefficients  categorical  were coded  variable  i n a categorical  by were was  manner.  7 1 The  categorical  highest  degree  recoded  variables attained,  Intimacy  were: and  were c a l c u l a t e d  such  age,  as  :  cohabitation,  years  variable. only  of  wives), and  Intimacy  were  variables.  This  computed kind  would  be  In a d d i t i o n ,  inappropriate  With-  regards  regressions  were  to  after.  performed  Other r e g r e s s i o n  premarital  eta  was  Perceived for  and  chosen  other because  ranked  Haverkamp,  contributions,  where,  by  default,  while  other  the  greater  variables  statistics correlation  were  introduced  analyses (eg. forward or backward) were t h i s study's questions  on  Wampold  Freund  by  simultaneous m u l t i p l e does not  offer a  entering  any  of  predictors. multiple  Overall,  regression  and  regressions  research  one  a  simultaneous  f o r exploring  report  so  personal  deemed i n a p p r o p r i a t e the  the  correlation  i t i s not  (B.  the  1996).  analyzing  satisfaction first  of  occupation  program entered the v a r i a b l e that showed the with  variables  (specifically  correlation  communication, September 18,  correlation  Self-Disclosure,  occupation i s a c a t e g o r i c a l v a r i a b l e but Spearman  the  f i v e types of coping,  between  of  income,  husbands)  years  Difference  Marital Satisfaction.  coefficients  for  Pearson  marriage,  years of education, the  Intimacy,  children,  between continuous  four types of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , t o t a l Emotional  of  (specifically  Difference  coefficients  number  the  That  is,  were employed because previous  t h e o r e t i c a l or predictor  three  (1987) .  based  empirical  variables  predictors  to determine j o i n t  were  basis  prior  to  entered  contribution  to  for other  into  a  marital  72 satisfaction  :  self-disclosure,  intimacy  difference,  and  p o s i t i v e coping. Also,  the  (beyond  the  assessed  by  separate  contribution  c o n t r i b u t i o n s of s u b t r a c t i n g the  the  made  other  Adjusted  by  two  each  predictor  predictors)  R-squared  value  r e g r e s s i o n equation that d i d not contain the p r e d i c t o r , Adjusted  the  from the  R-squared value of the r e g r e s s i o n equation c o n t a i n i n g  a l l three p r e d i c t o r s (R. Conry, personal communication, 1996).  A  similar  contributions squared  of  was  value  predictors  and  process  was . used  f o r each demographic of one  a  to  analyze  variable.  multiple  regression  demographic  variable  with was  July  The the  30,  separate  Adjusted three  compared  to  Rkey the  Adjusted R-squared value of a m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n w i t h only the three key p r e d i c t o r s present.  73 Chapter  IV  Results  Several  hypotheses and research  questions were  f o r wives and husbands i n t h i s study. self-disclosure,  intimacy d i f f e r e n c e ,  j o i n t l y contribute and that  to s a t i s f a c t i o n .  self-disclosure  and  be  Also,  negatively  d i f f e r e n c e would be negatively  with  hypothesized  would  s a t i s f a c t i o n while correlated  would make a unique  i t was  coping  Moreover, i t was hypothesized that  be  intimacy  marital  hypothesized  that  would be n e g a t i v e l y but  explorations  satisfaction.  intimacy  this  difference  Based  a Single on  Index  previous  and  Finally, i t  positive  coping  Other questions were a l s o posed  study  f o r i t was  would  yield  answers and suggest new questions f o r future  Creating  intimacy  c o r r e l a t e d while s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  correlated.  in  difference  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and  no s p e c i f i c hypotheses were ventured  the  that  positively  and p o s i t i v e coping would be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d . was  that  and p o s i t i v e coping would  variables  positive  c o r r e l a t e d with m a r i t a l would  I t was hypothesized  to husbands' and wives' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n  each of these p r e d i c t o r  contribution  investigated  for Marital research  hoped  some  that  tentative  research.  Satisfaction  i t was  suspected  that  the  o v e r a l l scores on the DAS and the KMSS would be r e l a t e d and  that  scores on these two measures could be combined to y i e l d a s i n g l e index  for marital  satisfaction.  Combining  scores would be advantageous i n that  these  two  sets  of  i t o f f e r s a more r e l i a b l e  74 measure  of  the  dependent  variable,  (1994),  According to Murphy and Davidshofer t y p i c a l l y more r e l i a b l e the  composite.  correlated  If  tests,  even than  one  this  adds  marital  composite scores  the t e s t s  the  scores  to  adding  i s akin  satisfaction.  that of  are  have made  several  together  up  highly  scores  s e v e r a l p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d items to form a s i n g l e t e s t  on  score.  Each t e s t serves as a form of measurement of the same a t t r i b u t e . To scores,  begin z  with,  scores  i n order  to  were computed  score and KMSS T o t a l scores.  standardize f o r every  This was  the  subject's  done by  mean of the s c a l e from the subject's score and standard d e v i a t i o n of the r e s p e c t i v e s c a l e . explore  the  p l o t was plot may  relationship  between  the  c r e a t e d using the zDAS and  displayed a positive,  DAS  DAS  dividing  linear  Total  by  the  i n order  KMSS,  zKMSS scores.  moderate,  DAS  KMSS  s u b t r a c t i n g the  Then, and  and  to  a  scatter  This  scatter  a s s o c i a t i o n which  have been even stronger i f an o u t l i e r were excluded.  Pearson  correlation  subjects  to  found  to be  d e c i s i o n was averaging  was  give a more accurate 0.7992  (p=.000).  Given  z scores to y i e l d  (zKMSDAS).  calculated  indication  made to combine the DAS  their  satisfaction  coefficient  this  of  The  (using  all  strength)  and  strong c o r r e l a t i o n ,  and  KMSS t o t a l  a single  This z-score was  scores  a by  measure of m a r i t a l  used as the dependent  v a r i a b l e i n subsequent analyses.  Comparison In  of L o c a l  accordance  communication,  July  to  with 30,  "Out the  of Town" suggestion  1996)  a  Participants of  single  R.  Conry  sample  (personal  t-test  was  75 performed  f o r several  whether responses  key v a r i a b l e s  of l o c a l  i n the study  participants  differed  significantly  from the responses of "out of town" p a r t i c i p a n t s . of t - t e s t s , the mean of l o c a l population  mean  husbands  and compared  (N = 4) .  This  husbands  t o determine  In one s e r i e s  (N = 48) was used  to the mean  of  "out of  was done by s u b t r a c t i n g  as a town"  the mean of  l o c a l husbands from the "out of town" husbands on a p a r t i c u l a r variable.  The r e s u l t i n g value was then d i v i d e d  by the product  that r e s u l t e d from m u l t i p l y i n g the standard d e v i a t i o n of "out of town" husbands by the square root of the number of "out of town" husbands. and  Given a t w o - t a i l e d t e s t alpha of .05, t r i t  df of 3 (N-l), no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  local  and  "out of town"  Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e , variables. of  husbands  tcrit  r  Self-Disclosure,  The same formula was a l s o a p p l i e d t o a second  series  wives.  2.571,  Given  assessed the scores of l o c a l vs a two-tailed  test  alpha  of .05,  and df of 5 (N-l), no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s  emerged between l o c a l on t o t a l  total  between  Coping  of town" o  on  emerged  t o t a l DAS, t o t a l KMSS, and P o s i t i v e  s i n g l e sample t - t e s t s that  "out  of 3.182,  C  (N = 48) and "out of town"  S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e , Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e ,  (N = 6) wives  total  DAS,  total  KMSS, and P o s i t i v e Coping V a r i a b l e s .  Descriptive  Statistics  f o r the V a r i a b l e s  Table 1 shows the wives deviations  1  and husbands' means and standard  f o r key v a r i a b l e s . The greatest d i f f e r e n c e between  husbands' and wives' raw score means was found f o r Emotional Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e which was 17.00 f o r husbands and 25.33 f o r  76  wives.  Annual income of men ($30 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) was a l s o found t o be from that of women ($10 -  different  30,000).  Table 1 . Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r wives and husbands Variable  Wives (n=54)  Husbands  Age  mean = 3 9 . 7 sd = 1 1 . 1  mean = 4 1 . 9 sd = 1 1 . 9  Number of years married  mean = 1 4 . 2 0 sd = 1 2 . 3 6  mean = 1 4 . 2 0 sd = 1 2 . 2  Years of p r e m a r i t a l cohabitation  mean = 0 . 8 5 sd = 1.32  mean = 0 . 8 5 sd = 1 . 2  Years of education  mean = 1 4 . 6 4 sd = 3 . 7 4  mean = 1 5 . 6 5 sd = 4 . 2  Annual income  mean= $ 1 0 - 3 0 , 0 0 0 sd = N / A  mean= $ 3 0 - 5 0 , 0 0 0 sd = N / A  KMSS t o t a l  mean = 1 7 . 7 4 sd = 2 . 9 6  mean = 1 8 . 2 3 sd = 2 . 2  DAS t o t a l  mean = 1 1 2 . 9 3 sd = 1 4 . 6 6  mean = 1 1 5 . 7 9 sd = 1 2 . 5  mean = 3 8 . 6 9 sd = 7 . 0 3  mean = 3 9 . 0 8 sd = 8 . 3  Self disclosure t o t a l  mean = 6 1 . 8 7 sd = 1 0 . 4 1  mean = 5 9 . 3 6 sd = 9 . 1  Perceived emotional intimacy score (PAIR)  mean = 6 6 . 2 2 sd = 2 0 . 9 6  mean = 7 3 . 6 9 sd = 1 6 . 4  Expected emotional intimacy score (PAIR)  mean = 9 1 . 5 6 sd = 7 . 6 1  mean = 9 0 . 6 9 sd = 6 . 7  Emotional intimacy d i f f e r e n c e score (expected - perceived)  mean = 2 5 . 3 3 sd = 1 8 . 3 1  mean = 1 7 . 0 0 sd = 1 5 . 5  Positive  Coping  (n=52)  a  Note that the husbands' mean on t h i s v a r i a b l e was 2 . 4 2 with a standard d e v i a t i o n of 1.02 a f t e r recoding was accomplished.  77 Normality Key  Assumption variables  normality and  test  of  analyzed separately f o r the sample of husbands  and  sample of wives. that  is  were  The  derived  Lilliefors  from  Windows, 1993).  For  subjected  the the  significance  variables:  was  Lilliefors  i s a commonly used  sample of wives,  found  in  DAS.  the  (SPSS  null  hypothesis  the  test  on  the  Positive  and  rejected  when there were s i g n i f i c a n t departures from the  because  of  normality was  the  (p.= .01).  performed  distribution believed the  KMSS  which  also  In s p i t e of t h i s f i n d i n g , the  only  zKMSDAS slightly  close  to  not  variable skewed  reaching  s i g n i f i c a n c e p r o b a b i l i t y value was concern) ; and  3)  have c o n t r i b u t e d ( i t was  although the  the  frequency of  skewed), the 32  d i d show a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n and  was  no  from  transformation  because:  low  normal  departed  (-.78)  so  was  have been  and  1)  the  was  not  correlations;  significance  nature of  to a greater  negatively  not  hypothesis  T h i s may  to be capable of g r e a t l y a f f e c t i n g the  zKMSDAS was  scores  p_=.03).  distribution,  for  was  = .13,  null  and  following  Coping,  d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r zKMSDAS (K-S  the  for  retained  Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e ,  However,  test  test  showed normality) was  t o t a l Self-Disclosure, total  test  a  Kolmogorov-Smirnov  (assumption that the v a r i a b l e no  to  as  (i.e.  to r a i s e  item DAS  the  great  three item KMSS higher  2)  may  satisfaction questionnaire  assumed to maintain  the  i n t e g r i t y of the dependent v a r i a b l e . With regards to the sample of husbands, the n u l l hypothesis was  retained  following  and  no  variables:  significance total  was  found i n the  Self-Disclosure,  test  Positive  on  the  Coping,  78 zKMSDAS, and Perceived Emotional hypothesis  was  significantly  .24,  =  depart  from the normal  generated  p=.0000).  concern  Such  (particularly  sine,  tangent,  base-10  root,  and square)  scores  were  attempted.  distributions normal. data  which  logarithm,  still  Difference  (eg. i n v e r s e  base-e  of the Intimacy  departed  recoded  into  logarithm, Difference  transformations y i e l d e d significantly  As an a l t e r n a t i v e f o r a n a l y s i s , the Intimacy  were  levels  and m u l t i p l e  transformations  A l l of these  Intimacy  low p r o b a b i l i t y  i n the c o r r e l a t i o n s  several  to  f o r Intimacy  f o r the Intimacy  Therefore,  square  found  and Expected Emotional  regressions).  positive  the n u l l  was  distribution  extremely  v a r i a b l e which was to be used  inverse  However,  and the d i s t r i b u t i o n  (K-S = .16, p_=.0012)  Difference (K-S  rejected  Intimacy.  a new independent  variable  from  the  Difference (with  four  l e v e l s ) : a l l scores of 0 were recoded as a new v a l u e of 1; a l l scores between 1 and 15 were recoded as a new v a l u e of 2; a l l scores between 16 and 29 were recoded as a new v a l u e of 3; and all  scores between 30 and 60 were recoded as a new v a l u e of 4.  In t h i s  way, new ranked  moderate,  moderate-high,  Difference variable to  resemble  a  that  normal  was easy, in  keeping  fast, this  high  one. The  scores  on  recoded  the  Intimacy  was  transformed  Intimacy  Difference  i n a l l of the husbands' c o r r e l a t i o n s and  would  D i f f e r e n c e scores.  and  as the data's d i s t r i b u t i o n  v a r i a b l e was employed regressions  c a t e g o r i e s were c r e a t e d f o r low, low-  have  otherwise  The advantage  helpful  used  the o l d Intimacy  of t h i s procedure was that i t  i n maintaining d i s t i n c t  variable useful  for multiple  c a t e g o r i e s and  r e g r e s s i o n s while  79 not  allowing  values.  The  based on the  the  distribution  disadvantage  cumulative  scores i n the  to  was  become  that  frequency  the  ( i . e . the  d i s t r i b u t i o n ) rather  In  Between  order  variables, whenever  to  a  variables  were  the  distribution  order  and  position  was of  values  representation.  linear  correlation  ranked  extreme  Variables  investigate  Spearman  new  by  than t h e i r a c t u a l  so i t might have been a l e s s s e n s i t i v e  Relationships  affected  categorical  coded  in  coefficients variable  a  relationships  was  were  between  calculated  encountered  categorical  manner.  or,  Pearson  c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d only between continuous variables.  Probabilities  whether a  relationship  coefficients  were  were  also  calculated  is significant.  computed  Also,  between  to  eta  occupation  establish correlation and  other  v a r i a b l e s because occupation i s a c a t e g o r i c a l v a r i a b l e but not  i t is  ranked. It  should  correlations discussion  can  a  be  will  than  0.35).  studies  explore  the  that  only  magnitude  However, weaker  because  attributed  focus  moderate  greater  Table  noted  often  section  demonstrated  variables  be  it  to  on  the  (a is  significance sample  associations  correlation recommended  significant  size,  of the which  coefficient that  relationships  future between  i n greater d e t a i l . 2  depicts  c o e f f i c i e n t s and  the  Pearson  and  Spearman  correlation  t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r wives, w h i l e Table  3 shows c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s and p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r husbands.  >i U crj  e  •H 4J C  o  c  A  «1-1  U  4J C  M <U CM  M  LCI  a) > O) c  •H 4J  •H  -H  ro  CTN  O  ft 0  W  o o cu  «  a)  «  «  LD  vo  «  «  CO OJ  CN  «  r» r-  LD  w cu  CO  TJ CU W  SH  co  o o  to  d to  c  cu  UH  SH  0  T5 rH  *  VO CN  ro  CN  CN  ro  cd  CO  o  -H  > CU  TJ 0  a  . 00  00  ro  00  ro o  cu  VO O  — o H  cd  < u TJ CP  a  T3  w  a>  (8 0>  ^ VH  >n  VO  I-I  Lfl  «  o  LT) ro  I  cd  •rH Lfl O  o  CM -H  >i u<d e  •H  4->  H  >H SH  o u  CO  08  •H 4-> rd  CU  o  00 o  VO Lfl  co  00 rH  OJ o  <  CM d) rH  CO OJ  o  u  rH  <u  a o  a  o g o u c  tJ H cd (U  >H  -H ^ M (S  S  c 0  •H JJ rS  u  3 TJ W  C CD UH U 0 Ti rH =*fc -rH .C  u  to < a co  u  3 W 0 rH  u w  -H Q  o  CD  •> -H  Oi  -H  ft  4J  c •H  CO 0 0 Cu  u  u  u  CU CL, JJ  c  t—1  fd  o  •H 4-)  OH UH  M •H TJ  g«  C! ®  H  ••H  rH  ^  o ™  J_> Cd  W  (0  >  ,  •H  C/j T J  rH  CO H  TJ-3  o  4-> rd  CU  ^ U  £ w  •H  >i u 0 c rd c u g •H u ID c  rH  co O  -.14  4-1 (0  CO o  OJ o  o  -.30  -H  o o  :nt Exp  o  a) g o u c  MH •iH  S TJ  cu  TJ  a  cd LO  •H 4J O CU o • -H U cu >H iH v 4-)  (0 cu  s  id  a, x  a* w c j  0)  >i o  o c rs oi  e ^  •H CU J J M-l C M-l M  -H  TJ  JJ  o  A  u  «  Su  JJ  c <u M  ro co  o  CU  > •H JJ •H  CO o  CO  o cu  « CN  in  «  CN  ro  CO o  O  «  w  in  CP  c 0  o  TJ  i—I  o  CO o  O O  ro  TJ CU W  o u w  co cd  CN  o  <c Q  o  CD > CD  TJ  a  (0 O  o  CO o  LD O  CD  CO  —  Ui  s  I  Pi H  r<  •a  ra cu  u u  cau >i cu•H- H o CJ & _Q rd rd '•H -g - 6 CO H o 4J e o  CN CN  U3  o  Lf)  CN  ro  O  ro  4  CD >-l •M  o u ro  rC  18  a> g o u c  «  ro  «o  a>  ro  <  CU OI  0)  e 0 u c  «  CO  CN  LD O  CN  in  CO CO  U  w cu  2  4->  •H JJ  nS U 3  TJ H  0  ^ TJ  u  « in ro  A  0)  C M-l  •H  cd  a  o o (d • H  « ro ro C 0  -H  •iH  o  o  •a  o  O  r-l  3  Q W  CO  0  i-H  0  CO  •H  Q  > Ot  •H c JJ •H •H  CO  0 cu  a 0 CJ  u  cu cu JJ  c  H  tH  CN  -H  a)  o  1—1  4-1 J-> •H J J <d W  -.32*  iH  a  H  :nt Exp  o  -H 4J (TJ  U  •H  «  o  U  a  cd  u c fS 0) n •e H CD  M-l C M-l  JJ  M  -H  TJ  o o £ w wa  4J g TJ rd CO T J rd CD T J CD u*> rH cd - H 4J o CU U • •H CD  >  o a v u x cu Cu s w oi <d  id  82 Wives' S i g n i f i c a n t None  of  Correlations.  the  correlations  for  age,  number  income, highest degree, length of marriage, and a  significant  relationship  predictor variable. variables, years  marital  marriage  children,  education showed  satisfaction  or  a  Of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among demographic  only number of c h i l d r e n was  of  (r=.57)  and  age  significantly related was  related  to  to  years  of  i s evident from Table 2, wives' M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n  was  marriage As  with  of  (r=.93).  strongly  p o s i t i v e l y correlated  Disclosure  (thereby  Intimacy  (.77,  correlated  strongly  Perceived  supporting  p=.00).  and  (r=.72, p=.00) with  and  Hypothesis  Also,  Marital  negatively  with the  Emotional  Intimacy  Expected  9)  total  and  Self-  Perceived  Satisfaction  was  discrepancy between (r=  -.73,  p=.00),  which supported Hypothesis 7. As  part  variables  on  Meaningful between  of  post  each  hoc of  significant  Marital  C o n f l i c t Coping  analyses, the  measures  moderate  Satisfaction (r= -.43,  correlations were  correlations and  other  also were  p=.001), S e l f Coping  (r=  p=.00), and The  Sex  wives'  Perceived  was  also  Negative D i s c l o s u r e  found  found  such  as  -.47,  p=.00),  .52,  p=.00),  (r=  (r=  .59,  (r=.46, p=.00). Intimacy was  c o r r e l a t e d with t o t a l S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e Intimacy  also  (r=.52, p=.00), P o s i t i v e D i s c l o s u r e  Disclosure  other  examined.  variables  Blame Coping (r=-.41, p=.002), Anger D i s c l o s u r e Negative D i s c l o s u r e  with  to  be  strongly  (r-.69,  and  positively  p=.00).  Perceived  significantly correlated  (r=.51, p=.00), P o s i t i v e  Disclosure  with  (r=.60,  83  p=.00), Anger D i s c l o s u r e p=.01), Blame Coping  (r=.56, p=.00), Sex D i s c l o s u r e  (r=.35,  (r= -.46, p=.001), C o n f l i c t Coping  p=.002), and S e l f Coping  (r=-.42,  (r= -.44, p=.001).  The discrepancy between Perceived and Expected Intimacy was c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with Anger D i s c l o s u r e Negative D i s c l o s u r e .45,  p=.00),  Sex  (r= -.31, p=.02), P o s i t i v e D i s c l o s u r e Disclosure  (r=.36, p=.01), Blame Coping (r=.46,  p=.00).  correlated  (r= -.43, p=.00),  As was  negatively  (r= -.29,  p=.04),  (r= -  Self  Coping  (r=.54, p=.00), and C o n f l i c t Coping expected,  with  total  Intimacy  Difference  Self-Disclosure  also  (r= -.54,  p=.00) thus supporting Hypothesis 11. The wives significantly Disclosure,  Positive  1  Coping  variable  c o r r e l a t e d with M a r i t a l  found t o be only s i g n i f i c a n t l y independent  and S e l f Coping  variables  s u r p r i s i n g l y not  Satisfation,  or any of the intimacy v a r i a b l e s .  5, 13 and 15 were not confirmed.  other  was  total  Hence,  Self-  Hypotheses  For wives, p o s i t i v e Coping was and weakly  : Avoidance  correlated  Coping  w i t h two  (r=.38,  p=.01)  (r=.32, p=.02).  Husbands' S i g n i f i c a n t C o r r e l a t i o n s . According moderately (r=.54,  positively  p=.00)  correlated  Marital  with  3, the husbands' M a r i t a l correlated  so i t supported  positively  Furthermore, negatively  to Table  with  with  hypothesis  Perceived  S a t i s f a c t i o n was  the recoded  Expected Emotional Intimacy  total  Self-Disclosure  10.  Intimacy correlated  discrepancy between  Satisfaction  I t was (.66,  also  p=.00).  strongly  and  P e r c e i v e d and  (r= -.56, p=.00) thereby c o n f i r m i n g  84 Hypothesis 8. Meaningful moderate c o r r e l a t i o n s were between  the husbands' M a r i t a l  v a r i a b l e s : C o n f l i c t Coping .35, p=.01), Blame Coping (r=.38,  p=.005),  Disclosure  (r= -.49, p=.00),  Perceived  with age  (r=.35,  (r= -.37, p=.01), Blame Coping -.46,  p=.00),  Negative D i s c l o s u r e Self  Difference The  the  following  S e l f Coping  (r=-.41, p=.002), Negative  Positive Disclosure  husbands'  significantly  p=.00),  and  found  (r= -  Disclosure  (r= .36, p=.009),  and Sex  (r=.32, p=.021).  The  (r=  Satisfaction  also  total  Intimacy  p=.01),  correlated  premarital  cohabitation  (r= -.38, p=.01), C o n f l i c t Coping  Self-Disclosure  (r=.47, p=.00),  Coping  was  (r= -.38,  (r=  .62,  p=.00),  Positive Disclosure  p=.01),  and  recoded  (r=.47, Intimacy  (r= -.84, p=.00). recoded  discrepancy  between  Perceived  and  Expected  Intimacy was c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with age (r= -.32, p=.02), Conflict p=.02),  Coping  (r=.40,  p=.00),  and Anger D i s c l o s u r e  Negative  (r= -.41,  Disclosure p=.00).  (r= -.32, The  recoded  Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e was a l s o p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with t o t a l Self Disclosure  (r= .42, p=.00) so Hypothesis 12 was given  support. The husbands' P o s i t i v e Coping v a r i a b l e was s u r p r i s i n g l y not significantly Disclosure,  c o r r e l a t e d with M a r i t a l  or any of the intimacy v a r i a b l e s . Hence,  6, 14, and 16 were not confirmed. significantly marriage  Satisfaction, total  correlated  (r=.34,  p=.01),  with  However,  age  number  of  (r=.33,  Self-  Hypotheses  P o s i t i v e Coping p=.02),  children  (r=.34,  years  was of  p=.01),  85 Avoidance  Coping  and S e l f Coping With  (r=.38,  Blame Coping  to  interrelationships  among  a meaningful s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n  between income and number of c h i l d r e n husbands  (r=.30,  who  p=.03),  (r=.53, p=.00).  respect  variables,  p=.01),  had  the  demographic  (p<.05) o c c u r r e d  (r=.55), suggesting that  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of  caring  for a  number of c h i l d r e n a l s o possessed a higher income.  greater  Significant  c o r r e l a t i o n s were a l s o found between: age and number of (r=.51),  age  and  (r=.30) and  years  of  marriage  (r=.88),  between number of c h i l d r e n  and  age  years  children  and of  income marriage  (r=.56). After made not  examining  the  to construct  a  c o r r e l a t i o n matrices, a d e c i s i o n single  SES  indicator  because  degree and years of education were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y with  any  of  the  key  independent  or  dependent  interest  (R. Conry, personal communication,  for  the  the  husbands'  correlation ratios the  wives'  30,  occupation  wives' e t a  =.53); P o s i t i v e  2  education  marriage  Coping  satisfaction approximate  (husbands' e t a  (husbands'  As eta  eta  2  =.31;  (husbands'  =.46;  2  wives'  wives' eta  2  eta  2  eta  2  =.42);  (husbands' eta =.39; wives' eta =.31); years 2  (husbands'  (husbands'  1996).  of  (which were greater than .30) were found w i t h  =.49); income  Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e  correlated  variables,  f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : highest degree a t t a i n e d  =.51,  of  and  income,  variables  July  was  eta  eta 2  (husbands' significance  =.63;  2  =.57; eta  2  2  wives'  wives' =.37;  eta  eta 2  wives'  2  =.44);  and  eta  =.34).  f o r these c o r r e l a t i o n  o f f e r e d by the s t a t i s t i c s package employed.  =.49); years  2  ratios  of  marital  was  The not  86  Multiple For  Regression the  purpose  Analyses of  this  study,  simultaneous  regressions  were performed where, by d e f a u l t , the s t a t i s t i c s program entered the  variable  satisfaction Table 4 values  that  showed  greater  correlation  f i r s t while other v a r i a b l e s were introduced  summarizes the (for j o i n t  husbands' and  contribution  percentage of variance predictor's  the  unique  of the  and  after.  wives' Adjusted R-Squared three p r e d i c t o r s )  accounted f o r by  contribution  with  the its  and  combination of overlap  with  each other  predictors.  Table 4.  J o i n t and  separate c o n t r i b u t i o n s  (Joint  of each v a r i a b l e .  Husbands  Wives  .41  .67  Adjusted R-squared contribution)  Intimacy  15.40  Difference's  %  16.00  %  13.85  %  contribution Self-Disclosure's 9.34  contribution  %  P o s i t i v e Coping's contribution  -  0.46  %  0.50  the  %  87 Wives' M u l t i p l e Regressions. M u l t i p l e regressions using  were executed f o r M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n  Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e ,  total  Self-Disclosure,  Coping scores.  The three v a r i a b l e s  wives'  Satisfaction  Marital  predictors squared  produced of  .67.  This  F(3, 50) =36 .36 , p_=.00 . Table  5  depicts, for  contribution.  These  ( P o s i t i v e Coping);  of  detail,  of  were  reached  the  : B  =  £  predictors  three  values  in  .07, £.(1,50)  the  =.89  R-  and  .45, £(1,50)  =  Disclosure) .  As noted, the c o n t r i b u t i o n s  4.69  ,  joint  (Intimacy  p_=.00  by Intimacy  and  , p_=.38  = -5.05, p_=.00  Difference);  and  the  significance,  the Beta,  B = -.47, £(1,50) =  with  to  Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported.  each  B  contribute  .69, and an Adjusted  equation  i n more  probabilities  did jointly  as the equation  an R-squared  and P o s i t i v e  (Self-  Difference  S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e were s i g n i f i c a n t .  Table  5.  predictors  Beta,  t . and p r o b a b i l i t y  values  f o r each  of the  i n j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to wives' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n .  Variable  B  £  p_  (dl= 1,50)  Self-Disclosure Intimacy  Difference  P o s i t i v e Coping  Note: Beta i s the standardized  .45  4.69  .00  -.47  -5.05  .00  .07  .89  .38  regression c o e f f i c i e n t .  88  According  to the recommendation  communication, J u l y predictor two  30, 1996),  the separate  was c a l c u l a t e d  the p r e d i c t o r ,  4,  hypothesis  3  was  (and i t s overlap  a  contribution  separate  16% of the m a r i t a l  other  accounting and (and  that  d i d not  R-  contain  partially  As evident  supported  as  Intimacy  with the other key p r e d i c t o r s )  to m a r i t a l  satisfaction  satisfaction  variance  by  above  from  made  accounting the amount  was accounted f o r by P o s i t i v e Coping and S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e .  essence,  with  equation  the Adjusted  joint contribution).  Difference  In  of a  from the Adjusted R-squared value of .67 (found  f o r a l l three p r e d i c t o r s '  that  (personal  contribution  by s u b t r a c t i n g  squared value of the regression  for  Conry  (accompanied by the p r e d i c t o r ' s overlap w i t h the other  predictors)  Table  of R.  the Intimacy predictors)  Difference improved  variable  the r e g r e s s i o n  f o r 16% of the variance  beyond what  P o s i t i v e Coping had accounted f o r . i t s overlap  make a d i s t i n c t  However,  overlap  equation  Self-Disclosure  was a l s o  contribution  f o r 13.85%  satisfaction  already  been accounted  Coping.  In marked contribution  by accounting  variance  above  the variance  f o r by Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e contrast,  Positive  of 0.5% above  Coping  found to of the  that  had  and P o s i t i v e only  the c o n t r i b u t i o n  Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e and S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e .  by  Self-Disclosure  with other key p r e d i c t o r s )  marital  separate  (and i t s  made  a  made by  89 Husbands'  Multiple  Multiple  regressions  Satisfaction Disclosure, 4,  the  on  Satisfaction  equation  Therefore, detail,  predictors -.09, =  ,  Table  = -.78,  p_=.00  p_=.00  Intimacy  £  scores.  jointly  As e v i d e n t  with  (Intimacy  Table  (Positive  These were as Coping);  Difference);  (Self-Disclosure).  and B  As noted,  Beta,  involved  in  t,  and p r o b a b i l i t y  joint  for  contribution  ,  B = =  each  .41.  p_=.00. i n more of  the  follows:  B =  -.45,  .36,  £(1,48)  £(1,48)  of  the  husbands'  B  £ (df=  Self-Disclosure  marital  &  1,48)  .36  2.97  .00  Intimacy  Difference  -.45  -3.72  .00  Positive  Coping  -.09  - .78  .44  Note:  Beta  i s the standardized  regression  by  predictors  satisfaction.  Variable  =  significant.  each to  of  the contributions  D i f f e r e n c e a n d S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e were  6.  predictors  6 depicts, for  Table  husbands'  12.96  and p r o b a b i l i t i e s  contribution.  p=.44  to  three  F(3,48)=  Self-  from  and an A d j u s t e d R - s q u a r e d  2 was s u p p o r t e d . values  the  Marital  total  contribute  equation  .48,  for  Difference,  significance,  i n the joint  £(1,48)  -3.72,  2.97  Beta,  the  of  reached  Hypothesis  the  did  as  performed  Intimacy  Coping  variables  produced an R-squared This  were  (recoded)  and Positive  three  Marital  Regressions.  coefficient.  90  Once again, (personal  according  communication,  to the recommendation July  30,  1996),  by R.  the  c o n t r i b u t i o n of a p r e d i c t o r  (accompanied by i t s overlap  other  was  two key p r e d i c t o r s )  calculated  Adjusted R-squared value of the r e g r e s s i o n contain  the p r e d i c t o r ,  by  separate w i t h the  subtracting  equation that  from the Adjusted R-squared value of .41  from Table 4, hypothesis 4 was p a r t i a l l y recoded Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e  by  evident  supported because the  (and i t s overlap  with the other two  made a d i s t i n c t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o m a r i t a l  accounting  the  d i d not  (found f o r a l l three p r e d i c t o r s ' j o i n t c o n t r i b u t i o n ) . As  predictors)  Conry  f o r 15.40% of the m a r i t a l  satisfaction  satisfaction  variance  above the amount that was accounted f o r by P o s i t i v e Coping and Self-Disclosure. (and  In essence,  i t s overlap  regression  equation  beyond what for.  with  the other  by accounting  Self-Disclosure  key  predictors)  was  Difference  predictors)  improved  Coping  (and i t s overlap  also  found  to  by  above the variance  Intimacy  contrast, (i.e.  Difference  that had already  and P o s i t i v e  the regression)  made by Intimacy Difference  variance  with the other  make  a  separate  satisfaction  been accounted f o r  Coping.  In  P o s i t i v e Coping d i d not make a d i s t i n c t  d i d not improve  the  had accounted  c o n t r i b u t i o n by accounting f o r 9.34% of the m a r i t a l variance  variable  f o r 15.4% of the  and P o s i t i v e  However, S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e  two  the Intimacy  above  noticeable  contribution  the c o n t r i b u t i o n  and S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e .  In f a c t , the  Adjusted R-squared value dropped by 0.46% when P o s i t i v e  Coping  91 was  added  Intimacy  to  the  regression  that  already  contained  D i f f e r e n c e and S e l f - D i s c l o s u r e .  Multiple In  Regressions  order  demographic  to  important  the  regression  to  marital  Marital  shows  further  detail  demographic  variable  was  probability  for  of  variance  each  addition,  accounted with  other  which  improved  which  accounted  above  the  for  variance  predictors. husbands'  the  for  table  each  regression 4  % of  that  was this  the  wives'  The  the  shows  the  only a  result  Beta,  was  a  demographic  and  demographic  by true  of its  variable  was  satisfaction  only  7  and  percentage  little,  to  Table (after  predictor  explained  the  Intimacy  error.  husbands'  marital  already  =  equation),  and  equation  +  of  a  added  R-squared  demographic  predictors.  However, data.  to  the  by  Satisfaction Coping  of  several  individually  Adjusted  added the  were  Positive  the  contribution  satisfaction,  equation:  Self-Disclosure +  In  separate  variables  +  variables.  the  demographic  Difference in  With Demographic V a r i a b l e s .  measure  variable  more  overlap  equation  income, variable  the for  other the  92 Table  7.  (bevond  Adjusted  R-scruared  values.  the  3  predictors'  combined  significance  of  demographic  variables.  separate  contributions  contribution).  Beta,  and  Contribution Demographic  Adjusted  Variables  R-squared  variance B  p.  in  satisfaction  H =  .41  H =  -.08  H =  .52  H  =  0 %  W =  .67  W =  -.12  W =  .17  W =  0 %  H =  .45  H =  -.21  H =  .05  H  W =  .67  W =  -.08  W =  .35  W =  0 %  Education  H =  .41  H =  -.07  H =  .54  H  0 %  (years)  W =  .66  W =  -.06  W =  .50  W =  -1 %  H =  .41  H =  -.07  H =  .54  H  =  0 %  W =  .67  W =  -.09  W =  .27  W =  0 %  H =  .41  H =  -.89  H =  .39  H  =  0 %  W =  .67  W =  -.09  W =  .28  W =  0 %  Age  Income  Marriage (years)  Number  of  Children  to  ±= 4 %  =  Note: H= H u s b a n d s ' s c o r e s w h i l e W= W i v e s ' scores. B is the s t a n d a r d i z e d r e g r e s s i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . Each demographic variable's c o n t r i b u t i o n to s a t i s f a c t i o n variance i s accompanied by p o s s i b l e overlap with other key predictors (Self-Disclosure, Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e , and P o s i t i v e C o p i n g ) .  93  Post Hoc M u l t i p l e Regression Analyses Because Intimacy  initial  Difference  positively that  several  transformations  variable  had  failed  of the husbands'  to  "normalize"  skewed d i s t r i b u t i o n , there was a strong  little  difference  f o r husbands.  existed  implication  between r e a l and i d e a l  intimacy  That i s , husbands showed s i m i l a r moderate t o h i g h  Expected Emotional Intimacy scores such that homogeneity within  the v a r i a b l e .  idealized)  Intimacy  It and  i s possible  hence  Expected  and  contribute  t o men's s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h i s  variables  appear  satisfaction.  to  Intimacy  be  Because  valid the  are not  Expected  d i s t r i b u t i o n was not normal,  Expected  (or  between  the  study;  whereas  of  the  Emotional  these  women's Intimacy  this variable  analyses  which  was l e f t  (and subsequently  discussion). As  part  variable  of post  (instead  hoc a n a l y s i s ,  of the Intimacy  the Perceived  Difference  husbands and wives was entered i n t o regressions Disclosure Perceived and  existed  predictors  predictors  out of the c o r r e l a t i o n and regression the  that  the discrepancy  Perceived  variable's  the  may  and P o s i t i v e  Coping.  Intimacy v a r i a b l e have  been  a  This  was  d i d possess  more  accurate  Intimacy  variable)  of the  along w i t h S e l f done  because the  a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n  predictor  of  husbands'  satisfaction. Although Positive for  Coping  the  Perceived  variables  a l l participants  Intimacy,  jointly  (regardless  value was l a r g e r f o r women  Self-Disclosure,  contributed of gender),  and  to s a t i s f a c t i o n the R-  squared  (Adjusted R-squared = .64) than f o r  94 men  (Adjusted R-squared = .47)  values could  suggested be  that  explained  such  by  the  the wives' Beta value was Perceived  Emotional  regression  equation  Difference)  so  a  Further e x p l o r a t i o n of the difference  difference l a r g e r and  Intimacy  did  ( r e l a t i v e to  i t may  not  Discrepant Intimacy) one Table 8 d e p i c t s  .  in  in  R-squared  values  Self-Disclosure  significant.  The  not  improve  the  greatly  entry  of  where  entry  recoded  matter which v a r i a b l e  Beta  of the  Intimacy  (Perceived  or  uses to p r e d i c t husbands' s a t i s f a c t i o n .  the Beta values and  t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r each  of the husbands' and wives' key p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s . Table  8.  Beta,  contribution  t.  and  p  (using perceived  for  each  predictor  instead of discrepant  Variable  the  Emotional Intimacy  P o s i t i v e Coping  H = .21  joint  intimacy).  B  Self-Disclosure  Perceived  in  p_  H =  .12  W =  .35  W =  .00  H =  .54  H =  .00  W =  .51  W =  .00  H =  -.08  H = .45  W =  .10  W =  .23  95 Test  Reliability In  of  Analyses  order t o estimate the i n t e r n a l  consistency  the measures, c o e f f i c i e n t alpha was computed f o r each of the  s c a l e s i n the f i v e measures.  On the DAS, the husbands'  y i e l d e d the f o l l o w i n g alphas : .91 (DAS t o t a l ) , .67  reliability  (Affectional  (Cohesion). total),  Expression),  The wives'  .83  .83 (Consensus),  (Satisfaction),  and  .72  sample presented alphas of : .93 (DAS  (Consensus),  (Satisfaction),  .79  scores  .73  (Affectional  and .79 (Cohesion).  Expression),  .87  With regards t o the second  measure of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n ,  the three item KMSS, the alpha  for  to be  the t o t a l  (wives).  score  I t was  coefficient  was found  deemed  redundant  .90  (husbands)  to compute  a  and .96  reliability  f o r the combined DAS / KMSS scores because Murphy  and Davidshofer  (1994) c l a i m that composite  scores are even more  r e l i a b l e than the t e s t s that make up the composite. the KMSS and DAS are h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d ,  Given  that  then the r e l i a b i l i t y of  t h e i r sum w i l l probably a l s o be h i g h l y r e l i a b l e . In Marital  the sample of husbands,  the c o e f f i c i e n t  Coping  found  Coping), (Avoidance  .80  Inventory  were  (Conflict  Coping),  Coping),  to be .87  :  (Self  and, .87 (Introspective  Self  alphas .84  f o r the (Positive  Coping), Blame  .32  Coping).  In the sample of wives the alphas were : .76 ( P o s i t i v e Coping), .90  (Conflict  Coping),  .84  (Self  Coping),  .22  (Avoidance  Coping), and .90 (Introspective S e l f Blame Coping). The husbands'  Communication data  Disclosure),  :  .92  Scale (Total  .86 ( P o s i t i v e  showed  the f o l l o w i n g  Self-Disclosure),  Disclosure),  alphas f o r  .87  (Negative  .44 (Anger D i s c l o s u r e )  96  and  .81  (Sex D i s c l o s u r e ) .  For wives' data,  Self-Disclosure),  (Total (Positive  .91  .75  Disclosure),  the alphas  (Negative  (Anger  .94  were  .89  Disclosure),  Disclosure)  .70  and  (Sex  Disclosure). On  the PAIR'S  coefficient  alphas  Perceived .74  were  on the Expected Emotional .45  were  (husbands)  Difference  scores  emotional  r  .65  scale,  As  between  reliability  was  2  where rrjo was the r e l i a b i l i t y  alphas  f o r the  perceived  PAIR'S  and  calculated  ideal  using  the  (1994)  suggested by Murphy and Davidshofer  y  the  (wives) whereas  s c a l e the c o e f f i c i e n t  (wives).  (discrepancy  DD = [ (£x + r  the r e l i a b i l i t y  Intimacy  (husbands) and .84  Intimacy  and  intimacy),  f o l l o w i n g formula  Emotional  :  l - rxy ] / 1 - rxy  of the d i f f e r e n c e scores,  of the perceived scores,  r  x  was  r y was the r e l i a b i l i t y  of the expected scores, and r ^ was the c o r r e l a t i o n  coefficient  between the p e r c e i v e d and expected scores. For Intimacy  husbands'  scores,  Difference  scores  the r e l i a b i l i t y was found  to be  wives' scores i t was found to be . 4 8 . higher  c o r r e l a t i o n between perceived  y i e l d a lower r e l i a b i l i t y scores  reflect:  differences Davidshofer, perceived  that  1) would  1994).  of the .98  while  and expected  in  true  be due to measurement I f there  and expected true  is a  scores  for  Because of the formula, scores  f o r the d i f f e r e n c e scores.  differences  Emotional  greater  a  would  Difference  scores,  and  error  (Murphy  overlap  (eg. a higher  the  2) &  between  correlation),  97 then  there  w o u l d be  the  differences  measurement  For  and  expected  the  correlation  and  alternative  to  make  scores  could  compared  to  a the  the  husbands'  in  the  Perceived  Summary The this  to  but  less  perceived  for  the  wives  could  between  the  of  of  what  =  (range  the  (range  =  18)  these  two  difference scores.  husbands'  data  reliability  of  scores  =  84)  compared  were  perceived  wives'  higher  The range  72)  they  difference  in  the  husbands  confused  the  scores  Intimacy  =  the  wives  explain  scores.  scores  if  was  and  to  the  in  higher Intimacy  husbands'  and p r e - r e c o d e d  Intimacy  48).  Supported Hypotheses were  supported  by  the  results  of  predicted  by  :  wives'  self-disclosure, (Hypothesis  more  between  r e l i a b i l i t y i n the  range  (range  (range  while  f o l l o w i n g hypotheses  study The  scores  due  Thus  difference  .40  that  reliability  Perceived  Intimacy  of  the  smaller  scores  Difference  higher  wives'  is  distinction  difference  wives'  Difference  the  affect  addition,  the  was  scores.  be  correlation  scores  explanation  intimacy  then  true  would  render  the  intimacy  sharper as  scores  in  .51.  An  dimensions,  In  was  difference  would  husbands,  emotional  idealized  a  the  which  the  a  of  between  error  reliable.  able  less  1).  marital  satisfaction  intimacy  was  difference,  jointly and  positive  coping  98 The h u s b a n d s '  marital  self-disclosure, (Hypothesis  intimacy  (Hypothesis  3). separate  noticeable  4) .  (though  jointly  and  predicted  positive  and  coping,  by  coping  to  to  marital  and  to  marital  significantly)  correlated  each  satisfaction  and p o s i t i v e  made  in  did  a  a  husbands  not  make  a  satisfaction.  coping  for  make  satisfaction.  however,  positive  a  wives  not  satisfaction  coping,  made in  did  difference  marital  contribution  each  satisfaction however,  intimacy  satisfaction  not  difference  marital  Positive  separate  Marital  to  contribution  contribution  (Hypothesis  intimacy  Positive  Self-disclosure separate  difference,  and  contribution  noticeable  was  2).  Self-disclosure separate  satisfaction  the  were  positively  wives  (Hypothesis  5) . Marital (though  not  (Hypothesis  significantly)  (Hypothesis  satisfaction (and  (Hypothesis Marital (and  (and  and  significantly)  satisfaction (and  and  significantly)  the  husbands  intimacy  difference  correlated  for  the  were wives  intimacy  difference  correlated  for  the  were  husbands  8). satisfaction  significantly) Marital  for  positively  7) .  Marital negatively  correlated  were  6).  Marital negatively  coping  correlated  satisfaction  significantly)  and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e for  wives  (Hypothesis  and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  correlated  for  were  husbands  were  positively 9). positively  (Hypothesis  10) .  99 Self-disclosure  and  intimacy  (and s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d Self-disclosure  and  were  negatively  f o r wives (Hypothesis 11).  intimacy  (and s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d  difference  difference  were  negatively  f o r husbands (Hypothesis 12).  S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and p o s i t i v e coping were p o s i t i v e l y not s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d  f o r wives (Hypothesis 13).  S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and p o s i t i v e coping were p o s i t i v e l y not s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d Intimacy  difference  and  difference  and  (though not s i g n i f i c a n t l y )  (though  f o r husbands (Hypothesis 14) . positive  (though not s i g n i f i c a n t l y ) c o r r e l a t e d Intimacy  (though  coping  negatively  f o r wives (Hypothesis 15).  positive  correlated  were  coping  were  f o r husbands  negatively (Hypothesis  16) . Overall,  the r e s u l t s demonstrated that,  f o r both wives and  husbands, intimacy d i f f e r e n c e  and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e were stronger  predictors  of  and  correlates  p o s i t i v e coping contributed  marital  satisfaction,  very l i t t l e to m a r i t a l  while  satisfaction.  100 Chapter  V  Discussion  Predictors The  of Marital  results  combination  of  emotional jointly wives'  accounted marital  showed  from  husbands'  was  the  With and  joint  the  other  to  marital  in  response  discrepant satisfaction marital fourth  contribution  (along  to  with  one o f  intimacy while  positive  was  the  coping  i n wives  were p a r t i a l l y  )  amount that  c o u l d be selfto  p=.00).  discrepant  intimacy  overlapping contributions  did not.  research  Thus  of was  compared  .36,  was t h e w e a k e s t  supported.  the  of wives'  predictor  and husbands.  joint  adjusted)  separate  posed  strongest  to  p=.00  coping  second  adjusted)  respective  d i d make  the previously  positive  satisfaction hypotheses  while  their  and  portion  difference  (B =  contributions,  key p r e d i c t o r s )  satisfaction  and the  (41%  .45,  contribution  to distinct  first  contribution (B =  expected  i n husbands'  compared  This  linear  self-disclosure,  (67%  variance  variables.  self-disclosure  and  A larger  variance  satisfaction  self-disclosure  with  difference.  f o r by the greater  respect  the  the  Interestingly,  satisfaction  to marital  husbands'  Therefore,  gender  by t h e t h r e e  accounted  disclosure  the  and  % of the variance  satisfaction  marital  predicted  partly  a  that  perceived  coping,  supported.  marital  predictable  25  suggest  between  positive  f o r over  were  wives'  study  discrepancy  satisfaction.  contributions  of  the  the present  intimacy,  hypotheses  the  of  Satisfaction  Hence,  questions, of  marital  predictor  of  the t h i r d and  101 In  assessing  overlap  shared  each  predictor's  between  the p r e d i c t o r  p r e d i c t o r s was not removed. interpret  these separate  made only  regression  identify  the  predictor's contribute  shared  that,  were  similar  contribution accompanied  comparison  accounted  marital  in  permit  the  other  forward one  absence  to  of  predictors  of discrepant however,  the  self-disclosure variable with  the other  self-disclosure  % of m a r i t a l  a  that  distinct (which,  predictors, smaller i n contribution The  p r e d i c t o r of wives'  to husbands,  skills  intimacy  satisfaction).  s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e was a stronger  s a t i s f a c t i o n compared  two  s a t i s f a c t i o n ) was  of the wives'  while modern communication  contributions  Performing  further  and wives;  % of m a r i t a l  f o r 13.85  two key-  In any event, i t was i n t e r e s t i n g to  i t s overlap  t o that  f i n d i n g that  with  of the husbands' by  as unique  contributions  f o r husbands  f o r 9.34  accounted  would  variance  the separate  and the other  variable.  contributions  to s a t i s f a c t i o n .  find  (which  contributions  analyses  unique  c o n t r i b u t i o n , the  Hence, care should be taken not to  by the one p r e d i c t o r  multiple  separate  might  t r a i n i n g may  imply  that  be h e l p f u l i n  improving the wives' s a t i s f a c t i o n , the b e n e f i t s may be l e s s f o r husbands' s a t i s f a c t i o n . Rather, husbands' s a t i s f a c t i o n could be improved  considerably  case, the f i n d i n g that marital that  by other  unidentified  disclosure  s a t i s f a c t i o n could  factors.  i s an important  be explained  In any  p r e d i c t o r of  by previous  research  has found a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between s a t i s f a c t i o n and  self-disclosure  (Burke, Weir, & Harrison,  1976;  Hendrick,  Merves-Okin et a l . , 1991; Rosenfeld & Bowen, 1 9 9 1 ) .  1981;  102 Although discrepant intimacy and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e were to  be  stronger  positive  coping  possible for  predictors  of  contributed  marital  only  marginally),  that m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n  intimacy  and  satisfaction  could  self-disclosure.  serve  Because  it  as  of  if  marital  variables. future  satisfaction  This p a r t i c u l a r  to  disclosure intimacy  the  and of  the  importance  c l i n i c i a n s and  f i n d i n g s of  of  attending  spouse  the  study  and  counselling.  draw  level  the value of focusing on the  of  expected  While  researchers agree that s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  attended to i n therapy,  other  explored i n  the  between p e r c e i v e d  during  of  bidirectional  this  to  also  nature  predict  the  discrepancy  each  to  is  the  question remains to be  s t u d i e s . Nevertheless,  attention  were  (while  a predictor  c o r r e l a t i o n s , one cannot ignore the p o s s i b i l i t y of effects  found  most  should  be  discrepancy  between p e r c e i v e d and i d e a l intimacy during counseling i s not  as  commonly acknowledged by p r o f e s s i o n a l s . On  the  one  difficulty therapy  of  should  because they  hand, B i r t c h n e l l defining focus  result  "intimacy"  instead on  total  equality  Furthermore, i t may defines  i t as  marriage  can  stated  He  never  defined  exist  in  be p o s s i b l e to experience  feeling  that  marital  intimacy one a  as  could  In any  case,  intimacy  intimacy  and  (i.e. in a  since t h i s  study  found  emotional  intimacy  the  argue  relationship. ( i f one  emotionally c l o s e to someone) even exist  the  distance regulation  the other hand,  where e q u a l i t y does not  marriage). emotional  On  and  power and  i n closeness.  closeness between equals. that  (1994) r e c e n t l y addressed  in a  traditional  that p e r c e i v e d  discrepancy  made  103 distinct  c o n t r i b u t i o n s to m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n ,  that intimacy does have an important Exactly to be  how  determined.  tentatively by)  (1986),  satisfaction  marital satisfaction  f i n d i n g s of t h i s  for  by  this  study,  means  of  assumption  relationship  is  because  foster  he  affected  by  Carpenter  embrace  view  argues that i t i s more f r u i t f u l  the view of marriage  a c q u i r i n g more r e a l i s t i c Hence  the  importance  discrepant  marriage  might  of  entail  marriage.  f o r t h e r a p i s t s to  as a contract to a s s i s t  people  in  expectations regarding what they want. of  intimacy  consideration  might  expectations.  given  this  one  u n r e a l i s t i c expectations i n c l i e n t s about the i d e a l of Instead,  deny  remains  (or be  unmet  argues that t h e r a p i s t s should not  intimate  cannot  r o l e i n marriage.  that intimacy could moderate  support who  an  From the  infer  marital  Indirect  as  intimacy a f f e c t s  one  the  are  these  roles  of  evident concepts  ideal  and as  intimacy  justify  major  and  greater  predictors  of  s a t i s f a c t i o n i n marriage. Already, concepts MATESIM,  some  clinicians  have  attempted  to  of i d e a l i z e d intimacy to t h e i r p r a c t i c e . a  computer  automated  simulation,  was  apply  the  For example, designed  by  Lehtinen and Smith (1985) to help c o u n s e l l o r s analyze aspects marriage  (such as what type of person  spouse).  In  applications  light seem  of  highly  the  i s considered  present  study's  appropriate  for  of  the  ideal  findings,  such  assessing  marital  of the husbands'  intimacy  satisfaction. In t h i s  study,  the d i s t r i b u t i o n  d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e was  not normal.  One  could i n t e r p r e t  this  to  104 mean that  intimacy d i f f e r e n c e  perceived  intimacy.  of  this  study  v a r i a b l e and perceived  that  the recoded  As future of  intimacy  to p r e d i c t  satisfaction.  difference  part  of  the other  investigations  specific  Nevertheless, t o futher  i tis  examination  predictors  should consider  forms of coping  other  than  yet  to be  i n more d e t a i l  (such as c o n f l i c t ,  positive  identified,  coping,  the study  blame, o r  because  these  s i g n i f i c a n t l y with husbands' and wives'  satisfaction.  The  disclosure  relative  contributions  (eg. P o s i t i v e , Negative,  of  types  investigating predictors  respect  other of  satisfaction) .  intimacy  concepts  (and  intimacy, that  may  therefore  undergraduates  coalition and  found  themselves as emotionally  scores  importance  of  on  understanding  how  addition,  of s i x t y -  who  described  and i n t e l l e c t u a l  This one  finding may  i t i s also  as  marital  to one of t h e i r parents,  points  develop  expectations of intimacy based on experiences In  function  (1986) s t u d i e d the  participants  sexual,  the PAIR.  i t i s worth  t r i a n g l e patterns  that  closer  experienced l a r g e r emotional, discrepant  family  studies.  possibly  For example, West and Z a r s k i  cross-gererational  self-  Sex, and Anger) t o m a r i t a l  to discrepant  related  marital  of  s a t i s f a c t i o n a l s o merit f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n f u t u r e Furthermore, with  self  variables  were c o r r e l a t e d  origin.  greatly  studies.  coping),  six  as  analyses  intimacy v a r i a b l e d i d not d i f f e r  recommended that t h i s f i n d i n g be subjected i n future  a predictor  However, the post hoc r e g r e s s i o n  indicated  in their a b i l i t y  i s not as u s e f u l  also  intimacy t o the  beliefs  or  i n the family of  recommended  that  further  105 consideration  be  given  between a husband and t h i s question was  to  how  discrepancy  in  expectations  wife might c o n t r i b u t e to s a t i s f a c t i o n  beyond the scope of the present  as  study.  F i n a l l y , although none of the demographic p r e d i c t o r s made a distinct  contribution  to  marital  satisfaction  husbands'  income which  contributed 4%),  future  (except studies  attempt to r e f i n e t h i s study's measures of occupation  for  should  and  income  as p o s s i b l e p r e d i c t o r s i n the r e g r e s s i o n s .  Correlates  of  From the  Marital computed  Satisfaction c o r r e l a t i o n s i t was  s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r husbands or wives was emotional by  intimacy.  Merves-Okin  et  This  wives' m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n was  perceived  intimacy  a s s o c i a t e d with  Furthermore, l i n k e d not  rather to how  was  from  their  the  discrepant ideal  wives  discrepancy  who  were  more  between t h e i r  current and  intimacy. This f i n d i n g was of  Murstein  discrepancy  and  Willimas  between  an  satisfied,  perceived  individual's  expectation  their  current thereby  perceived  level  of  by  found  perception  In  addition,  discrepancy  other  between  less  emotional  the  research  that  smaller  of  the  spouse and the spouse ( i . e . by greater degree of conformity stereotyped r o l e ) was  or  That i s , husbands  also  ideal  who  research  intimacy,  i n d i r e c t l y supported (1983),  greater  husbands'  to t h e i r  supporting the seventh and eighth hypotheses. and  that  i s c o n s i s t e n t with previous  a l . , 1991).  of intimacy per se, but  found  ideal to a  accompanied by greater m a r i t a l adjustment. researchers perceptions  and  have  also  ideals  in  reported a  that  marriage  is  106 related  to m a r i t a l  s a t i s f a c t i o n (Spanier, 1979;  Craddock,  1980;  Anderson et a l . , 1986). Most (1996)  recently,  reported  that  partner predicted satisfied partner.  with  study the  greater their  This may  to g e n e r a l l y  a  by  idealized  relationships  be  On  the  attributed  other  Holmes,  they  the  then  the  p a r t n e r would be  fulfilled  idealized  their  tendency  i t s people through rose  hand,  expectations  one's  were more  participants'  one  could  argue  i n d i v i d u a l views h i s / her partner as being the person,  Griffin of  Individuals  if  to  and  constructions  satisfaction.  view the world and  glasses.  Murray,  regarding  and  the  the  that  if  " r i g h t " or  ideal states  idealization  individual's  the  an  relationship spouse  the  satisfaction  i d e a l i z a t i o n by or  of  treatment by  i n d i v i d u a l who  is  idealized  the  the  t r i e s hard to see  support is  intimacy  from  fantasies  happier  the partner) i n the marriage,  be more motivated to l i v e up strengthen  /  differently  i n ways that  who  partner  and  of  intimacy.  existing  Would  affect  the  intentional the  partner  hopes?  (because  of  could he  / she  If  special  to i d e a l i z e d standards and  partner's already  and  experience  Several i n t e r e s t i n g questions a r i s e from t h i s assumption. perceived  then  in  satisfaction?  turn Could  i d e a l i z a t i o n of the partner or intimacy ever be damaging f o r relationship beg  further  and  an  satisfaction?  Such  the  questions  research.  Interestingly, husbands'  individual's  an  ideal  relationship  i n d i v i d u a l would  l e s s discrepancy between perceived and  colored  or  no  wives'  strong r e l a t i o n s h i p was marital  satisfaction  and  found between a  the  constructive  107 positive  approach  to  coping  f i v e and  s i x r e c e i v e d no  with  disagreements,  support.  On  the  so  hypotheses  other hand, post  hoc  analyses found that m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n d i d moderately decrease when C o n f l i c t ,  Self,  more d e s t r u c t i v e This r e s u l t  and  Blame Coping approaches  modes of  coping) were  i s p a r t i a l l y supported by  increasingly  been  implicated  affects  as  marital  a  satisfaction  McEllrath, Mitchell, The between  marital  Positive  to  Coping  satisfaction, should  but  perhaps  the  speculate  to  &  i n opinion  to r e s o l v e problems which  Waring,  1980;  strong  positive  its  only  fairly  might  of  satisfaction  resolution  high  could  still  positive time. in  (although  Future  coping  to  can  from the  such as  may  be  marital  conflict  satisfaction  for  resolution  both  skills  husbands  and  in  one  not  be  coping  or if  distracting intimacy  e f f e c t i v e l y play a more important r o l e  superficial  studies  deteriorate  oneself  may  to  marital  may  means of  Other f a c t o r s  the  Alternatively,  engage i n c o n f l i c t , self-blame or problem).  in  contribute  marriage  satisfaction  be  reliability).  couples  disclosure  Waring,  relationship  coping  longitudinally.  longer p e r i o d of  that  a  s i g n i f i c a n t l y enhanced by employed methods of p o s i t i v e conflict  has  ultimately  greater measurement e r r o r  coping  relation  find  and  (despite  positive  assess  study  v a l i d i t y or  s a t i s f a c t i o n over a can  this  scale  Alternatively,  differences  intimacy,  (Hames  satisfaction  low  of  utilized.  & Derry, 1981).  f a i l u r e of  attributed  refusal  component  be  previous l i t e r a t u r e which  contends that the c a p a b i l i t y of r e s o l v i n g without argument, c r i t i c i s m , or  (which may  and  than what  maintaining  wives.  This  108 explanation which  show  is  supported  that  compared  discrepancy  intimacy  individually wives'  accounted marital  satisfaction  well  Alternatively,  the  age of  reported  that  forties.  this  positive  T h e mean  the  mean a g e o f h u b a n d s  the  p o s s i b i l i t y that  Positive to  Coping  marital  supporting  the  used  this  study  a  coping  marital  finding  Bowman  was  to  (1990)  in  their  39.7,  while  one cannot  role  in  i n husbands'  by people  Therefore, played  variance  i n wives'  participants.  in this  variables  Positive  variance  the n e g l i g i b l e  amount  satisfaction  with to  disclosure Harrison,  those  exist (see  1976;  Rosenfeld  explanation  ignore  i n the usage  contribution  feelings,  between by  1991).  enhance  that  and  1981; It  strongly and  This  studies  it  of  made  which  1979;  marital  by d i s c l o s i n g  wives  unclear  thereby  finding found  a  is  et  self-  Weir,  a l . ,  exactly  in  positive  and  Burke,  Merves-Okin  is  correlated  satisfaction  Waterman,  intimacy,  be  ten.  marital  one can f a c i l i t a t e  and increase  to  husbands  several  Hendrick,  could is  of  seemed for  nine  review  & Bowen,  disclosure  conflict  wives  and thereby  of  o n e may a t t r i b u t e  was 4 1 . 9 .  hypotheses  accordance  and  the  a g e may h a v e  disclosure  marital  relation  portion  the  satisfaction.  Total with  of  variable,  of the variance  study's  analyses  self-disclosure  c o p i n g was l e a s t  age  coping  satisfaction.  as  satisfaction. particular  total  one p e r c e n t  as  regression  positive  larger  marital  than  multiple  the  for a  husbands'  for less  to  the  and the  accounted  and  by  &  1991;  how  self-  satisfaction.  One  possible  expectations,  needs,  beliefs  mutual thereby  understanding, contributing  to  decrease marital  109 satisfaction. report  This  that  experienced treatment conflict offers  describes  plan  where  and enable  f o r couples  (or  second  be  McAllister's  trust  for  a  if  According  (presumably  husbands  than  wives'  husbands. Anger  of  the  negative  satisfaction the  it  will of  assess  scale  (1990) that  therapeutic  by  /  her  level  between disclosure  the  the husbands'  was  would and  study  level  of  regard. then  be  intimacy  was  that  satisfaction  and  smaller  while  higher  disclosure  association  for this  Communication of  and  increase.  Also,  amount  from  perceived  positive  marital  by greater  of  repeated  would  enhance  liking  intimacy  and  be  could  self-perception  i n the present  explanation of  a  reduce  inferred  the  his  trust  would  finding  sex  is  use the  no s u c h s i g n i f i c a n t  One p o s s i b l e  to  contending  produces  then  was f o r t h e w i v e s .  sample,  to  Waring  the s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  relation or  by  to  attributed  norm,  was a c c o m p a n i e d  Disclosure  accurately  are  along with satisfaction)  magnitude  positive,  According  indicator  interesting  Also,  couples  exposed  employed  satisfaction  self-disclosure  Another  was  were  f o r how s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  the receiver  an  they  (1990)  distressed.  self-discloses,  receiver  as  after  twenty-four  constructs  report.  one  of  explanation  marital  to reciprocity  reciprocated,  the  by)  In turn,  disclosure  this  explanation  the  intimacy.  for  personal  (1980)  hypothesis,  fifteen  understanding.  who a r e  enhanced  supported by R u s s e l l ' s  i n intimacy  mutual  of  is  self-disclosure  support  self-disclosure  A  how  an increase  more  change  explanation  of  is  Inventory  the  marital anger  was f o u n d  finding  anger  for  that  in for the  d i d not  disclosure  (the  110 reliability  coefficient  was moderate compared  reliability  coefficient  found  scale).  An a l t e r n a t i v e  have been s o c i a l i z e d  f o r the wives'  explanation i s that  t o adopt  wives  support  to this  communicate  Pearson  (1989)  latter  more  because  women may  i n marriage,  lead them t o p l a c e more  found  Levinger and Senn  explanation by t h e i r  unpleasant that  i n f o r m a t i o n than men do. is  Disclosure  on emotional d i s c l o s u r e and thus they would be more  motivated t o d i s c l o s e t h e i r f e e l i n g s . lend  Anger  an expressive r o l e  t h e i r g r e a t e r emotional investment might importance  t o the stronger  feelings  women  disclose  It logically  discouraged o r prevented  than  from a r t i c u l a t i n g  finding  that  negative i f a woman  her f e e l i n g s and  sharing her fears, joys o r d e s i r e s , she may be more l i k e l y dissatisfied.  In contrast,  perhaps  dynamics o r p e r c e i v e d i n a b i l i t y  because  to express  p l a c e l e s s emphasis on expression of f e e l i n g s  that  husbands do.  more  follows  (1967)  of  t o be  socialization  themselves,  men may  (such as anger) or  s h a r i n g l i k e s , d i s l i k e s and p r i v a t e aspects of themselves. Apart  from  such  speculations,  i t also  remains  t o be seen  whether an i n d i v i d u a l ' s s a t i s f a c t i o n i s p r e d i c t e d more by the d i s c l o s u r e of t h e i r partner o r by t h e i r Several s t u d i e s have already found that disclosure  is a  predicting  marital  Rosenfeld & Bowen, After satisfaction,  a  stronger  than  satisfaction  own d i s c l o s u r e .  the spouse's  the partner's , (Antill  &  strongly  own s e l f -  disclosure Cotton,  in  1987;  1991).  review  of  additional  the  broad  predictors  of  research marital  on  marital  satisfaction  (which were not included i n t h i s study) present other avenues of  111 research.  Some of the more notable p o s s i b l e p r e d i c t o r s  boundary and power in  1975);  2)  (described  affection,  autonomy, or couple's  cohesion,  identity  intimacy);  3) a t t r i b u t i o n s ;  found  be  to  Hendrick's current parents' beliefs  as p r e d i c t o r s  positively  1981 study);  by Berman and L i e f  compatibility,  (which are other  4) a t t i t u d e correlated  sexuality,  components of  similarity with  (which was  satisfaction  5) an i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n  relations about  Eidelson  couples  in  of the  r e l a t i o n s h i p o r partner based on previous experiences of (Waring,  self,  Schaefer,  other,  &  Fry, 1994);  and the r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  (1981),  who  are associated  satisfaction. demographic  demographic  with  that  their  unrealistic expectations  I t was a l s o s u r p r i s i n g to f i n d variables  satisfaction  found  were  significantly related  i n the current variables  that  study.  However,  such as income,  education,  and 5)  which  a f f e c t s a t i s f a c t i o n . The l a t t e r p r e d i c t o r was s t u d i e d and  a r e : 1)  may  by E p s t e i n beliefs in  and  marital  none of the to  marital  the r o l e  of  degree, age,  years of marriage, number of c h i l d r e n , and e s p e c i a l l y occupation should  not  be  inconsistent is  discounted.  Rather,  f i n d i n g s , greater  required  to  clarify  because  of  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of these their  relationship  to  previous variables marital  satisfaction.  Correlates The  of Perceived  husbands' perceived  Intimacy intimacy was weakly r e l a t e d t o age.  Such an a s s o c i a t i o n was found only specifically,  i t appeared that  f o r men but not women.  older  More  husbands scored h i g h e r on  112 p e r c e i v e d intimacy. important  Thus i t could be that time or m a t u r i t y p l a y  r o l e s i n mediating the m a r i t a l emotional  intimacy that  i s experienced by husbands. In  addition,  lower  scores  achieved by husbands and wives who  on  perceived  intimacy  engaged i n blaming,  engaging or s e l f d i s t r a c t i n g s t y l e s of coping. while  positive  reduced  coping  emotional  is  not  intimacy  linked  with  appears  to  p o t e n t i a l l y d e s t r u c t i v e coping s t y l e s . and  wives  intimacy  perceive  are  low  unmet,  intimacy  themselves i n d i s t r a c t i n g coping with disagreements.  greater be  their  i t i s p o s s i b l e that activities  as  intimacy,  accompanied  by  i f husbands  expectations  they an  conflict  I t appears that  Furthermore,  and  were  learn  to  for  engage  a l t e r n a t e means  Such a coping s t y l e might be  of  chosen  over the other s t y l e s of coping i f a spouse p e r c e i v e s that h i s / her  expectations  f o r intimacy and  the p a r t n e r and issue  as  best  that i t i s up as  engage i n blaming  to him  i s possible  a c t i v i t i e s of i n t e r e s t ) .  disclosure w i l l / her  ( i . e . by  to  be  unmet  deal with  becoming  the  involved  in  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , husbands and wives  or c o n f l i c t  by  may  s t y l e s of coping i n an attempt  to  coerce the partner i n t o meeting the expectations. The  presence  of more p o s i t i v e  or negative  self-disclosure  a l s o appeared to be l i n k e d to a greater p e r c e i v e d intimacy. wives,  there  may  be  a  link  disclosure  and  marital  disclosure  and  perceived  positive experience  and  negative  intimacy.  between:  1)  satisfaction; intimacy.  disclosure This  could  2)  a l l four  types  of  all  types  of  However, seem be  For  related viewed  four for to as  men,  only  how  they  indirectly  113 supported  by  Waring,  individuals  who  emotional)  manner  disclosed  However, i n the related al. ' s  to  strongly  tended  current  anger  (1994)  Schaefer,  and  in  to  an  higher  the  related  to  that  to  emotional  intimacy  as  levels  wives'  d i s c l o s u r e ) appears  finding  (1994)  intellectual  have  study,  Fry's  report  that  (rather  than  of  intimacy  intimacy. (which  c o n t r a d i c t Waring  disclosure  intellectual  was  male  emotional assume  college  disclosure  Such  disclosure  of  that  by  virtue  less  explanation  Skiffington,  &  engaging  in  discrepancy contradicts  Williams,  d i f f e r e n c e s on emotional  1981)  with  Hence one  greater  their  previous  that  was.  intense can  anger  and women could have perceived g r e a t e r  experienced an  of  as  observed  more  s t a t e s were perceived as more i n t i m a t e .  d i s c l o s u r e , men and  students,  et  not  According to a study by Howell and Conway (1989), which thirty  was  self  intimacy  ideal  intimacy.  research  (Chelune,  failed  to  reveal  gender  expression and attendance to p r o p e r t i e s  of d i s c l o s u r e . The strongly  finding and  consistent  that husbands' and  positively  with  intimacy  1984;  between  suggests  studies  Waring & Schaefer,  husbands'  that  self-disclosure  a s s o c i a t e d with p e r c e i v e d  f i n d i n g s from previous  T o l s t e d t & Stokes, correlation  wives'  and  wives'  self-disclosure  intimacy,  (Prager,  1994) .  researchers declare  This  is possibly a  is  1986; strong  self-disclosure  d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to (or a component of) the construct intimacy."  was  and  behavior "emotional  This notion i s i n l i n e with the w r i t i n g s of v a r i o u s (Hames & Waring,  1980;  Waring  et  a l . , 1981)  sharing p r i v a t e thoughts or a t t i t u d e s i s a  that  qualitative  114  aspect  of intimacy.  (1975), Schaefer have  stated  intimacy.  and Olson  that  an  and  Chaikin  (1981) and Waring and Chelune  self-disclosure  and  overlap  intimacy.  (1971), Derlega  is  an  important  perceived  and  intimacy  reflects  f o r men  construct  factor  and  validity  women h i n t s emotional  On the other hand, one could argue that the  emotional  i s a multidimensional  construct  r e q u i r i n g not only d i s c l o s u r e but other f a c t o r s as w e l l being understood, the  six  address  cared f o r and  items  in  the  d i s c l o s u r e of  PAIR'S  feeling  from my partner", "I  "My  feel  Emotional  and  Intimacy  being  listened  are:  at  times  by  my  sometimes f e e l l o n e l y when we're together". and  Chelune  more  than  compatibility they  of  and  argued  the  identity  that  variance aspects  in of  self-disclosure  scale to  my  by  do the  hurts  partner",  and  and "I  In a d d i t i o n , Waring  (1983) reported that s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e 50%  Two  "I o f t e n f e e l d i s t a n t  partner can r e a l l y understand  neglected  (such as  closeness to the p a r t n e r ) .  partner, while the other four items  joys",  for  for  intimacy measured i n t h i s study  of  (1983)  Hence, the s i g n i f i c a n t l y p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between  self-disclosure at  Also, Jourard  the  accounted  expressiveness,  intimacy; and  for  nevertheless,  intimacy  are  not  synonymous. In any satisfaction all  four  case, and  types  the  f i n d i n g s s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t e that womens'  experienced of  specific  intimacy  disclosures.  p e r c e i v e d intimacy seemed to r e l a t e  to only  of d i s c l o s u r e : p o s i t i v e and negative. Waring  r e q u i r e s the In two  According  presence  contrast, specific  mens  1  types  to Chelune  (1983), s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e can be c a t e g o r i z e d as  of  and  expression  115 of emotion, need, thoughts o r a t t i t u d e s and s e l f awareness. could  conceptualize  aspects  of oneself  disclosure, that  which  includes  could  be contrasted  emotional  (and expectations)  of p o s i t i v e  by husbands as a c o g n i t i v e  whether the concept  according  the d i s c l o s u r e  expression.  of intimacy  with  wives'  (1992),  men  may  of s e l f disclosure  arises  a different  f o r men than i t does f o r women.  t o Hendrix  negative  style  A question  might hold  and  view  One  as t o meaning  For example,  communication  as  s e r v i n g the purpose of problem s o l v i n g , while women b e l i e v e that communication serves event,  specific  the purpose of enhancing intimacy.  studies are required  t o i n v e s t i g a t e how change  i n p a t t e r n s of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e could a f f e c t aspects A weak was  also  and  length  of intimacy.  (not s i g n i f i c a n t ) but i n t e r e s t i n g gender d i f f e r e n c e  noticed  f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e  of marriage.  p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n with negative  In any  a s s o c i a t i o n with  S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e appeared  t o have  a  length of marriage f o r husbands but a length  of marriage  f o r wives.  The  wives' c o r r e l a t i o n i s consistent with A n t i l l and Cotton's  (1987)  and Burke et a l . ' s  i n the  duration beliefs and  (1976) f i n d i n g s that with  of marriage, diminishes.  Hendrick  (1981)  the sharing Also  previous  not husbands). expect  their  of problems, research  shows a s i g n i f i c a n t  between s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and length  an i n c r e a s e  f e e l i n g s or  by Jourard  negative  of marriage  relationship  f o r wives (but  Wives may be r e l u c t a n t to d i s c l o s e because they disclosure  not t o be  reciprocated.  d i s c l o s u r e i s not used o f t e n by husbands as i t p l a y s role  (1971)  i n husbands'  satisfaction,  wives  might  be  If  self-  a smaller gradually  116 discouraged  from  sharing  interdependence  in  emotions,  earlier  which  stages  i s part  of  of  emotional  marriage.  A  e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the f i n d i n g s of reduced d i s c l o s u r e c o u l d disclosure  becomes l e s s  important  and  has  been married f o r a long time and  and  the  necessary  to  be  that  wife  i s f a m i l i a r with the  who  spouse  relationship.  Because of  the  nature  of  correlations,  one  cannot  the p o s s i b i l i t y of b i d i r e c t i o n a l e f f e c t s i f m a r i t a l were to p r e d i c t remains  a  final  to  be  the  other v a r i a b l e s .  explored  in  interesting  and  relevant  is  the  partner's  whether  future  This  question to disclosure  satisfaction  particular  studies.  On  explore predicts  ignore  the  question side,  i n future an  an  studies  individual's  satisfaction.  Some studies have found that couples w i t h g r e a t e r  discrepancies  in  amount  of  disclosure  l e s s r e c i p r o c i t y ) a l s o report  output  less marital  (which  reflects  satisfaction  (Hansen  & Schuldt, 1984) .  Correlates  of  Positive with  marital  disclosure.  Positive coping  was  Cooing not  satisfaction, However,  i t was  found  to  significantly  intimacy found  difference  that  husbands  correlate or  engaged  g r e a t e r p o s i t i v e coping i f they were older, married f o r a p e r i o d of time, or had  more c h i l d r e n .  Despite the  selfin  longer  significance  of these c o r r e l a t i o n s , the magnitudes of these c o r r e l a t i o n s were low.  Further i n v e s t i g a t i o n of these f a c t o r s i s warranted.  117 Correlates  of the Discrepant  Intimacy  Variable  Wives, who i n d i c a t e d that the p e r c e i v e d emotional i n t h e i r marriage  d i d not meet t h e i r  expected  intimacy  intimacy, seemed  to engage i n a s t y l e of coping that demonstrated  more c o n f l i c t ,  blaming  activities  or  interest). conflict  self  As mentioned and  blaming  experiencing  their  more c l o s e l y  with  Segraves  distraction  (1982)  occur  ideals)  be  as  each  their  person (based  differences  i n these  (who  partner  standards.  of  perhaps a r e not  to  conform  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , as  enters  into  a  marriage  on the f a m i l y of o r i g i n ,  and personal experience) about  and that  section,  individuals  pressure  the i d e a l i z e d  suggests,  pursuing  i n the previous  w i t h expectations and b e l i e f s culture,  (by  how the marriage  beliefs  should  becomes a source of  c o n f l i c t between spouses. An  interesting  conflict or  self  s t y l e of coping  difference.  f o r the husbands,  (rather than  i n t e r e s t ) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y  intimacy Kirsch  f i n d i n g was that  This  introspective  positively  supports  only a  self  correlated  research  by M i l l e r  blame with and  (1987) and Bowman (1990), which found that women a r e more  l i k e l y t o engage i n s e l f blame and d i s t r a c t i o n compared to men. Perhaps w h i l e wives may have blamed o r d i s t r a c t e d themselves i n an attempt engage  to cope with  i n conflict  expectations. aggressive) expectations studies.  unmet expectations, husbands  i n an attempt  Whether rather  husbands  than  fulfilled  passive  to deal take  a  more  approach  i s an i n t e r e s t i n g  with  to  chose t o  their  unmet  active  (and  having  question  their  f o r future  118 In  addition,  participants  who  experienced  a  larger  d i f f e r e n c e between perceived and i d e a l intimacy, engaged i n l e s s total  self-disclosure,  twelve.  It  thus  supporting  i s understandable  that  hypotheses  i f one  does  eleven not  perceive  o n e s e l f i n an i d e a l marriage and with an i d e a l partner, a  l a c k of  trust  or an unwillingness  to  and  self-disclose  perhaps would  be  present as w e l l . A gender d i f f e r e n c e was intimacy anger  discrepancy  was  self-disclosure  discrepancy  was  noted  associated  while  for  a s s o c i a t e d with  self-disclosure.  As was  i n that f o r husbands, with  lower  wives  lower  a  negative  higher  scores  higher  on  and  intimacy  a l l types  noted i n the r e g r e s s i o n analyses,  of  self-  d i s c l o s u r e played a l a r g e r r o l e i n women's s a t i s f a c t i o n  compared  to  are  not  expectations  are  men's.  married  It  to the  unmet, they  i d e a l partner,  will  altogether. intimacy  i s p o s s i b l e that  limit  and  that  various  negative  appear  to  feel  their  types  In contrast, husbands who  discrepancy  anger and  their  i f wives  of  they  self-disclosure  are experiencing  significantly  d i s c l o s u r e s while  their  lower  greater  only  their  positive disclosure  about themselves remains unaffected. Husbands spouse  may  who  not  believe  feel  intimacy  vulnerable  fear that or  i s perceived  each spouse may  not  are  comfortable  perhaps because they them as  they  not  or  married  safe  the  ideal  in disclosing  anger  such a d i s c l o s u r e might  lacking in control. as  trust  to  a missing  part  the other's  of  level  reveal  Alternatively, the of  if  relationship, commitment  thus he / she w i l l not jeopardize the status of the  and  relationship  119 by expressing negative f e e l i n g s .  In any  case., t h i s  issue also  deserves more c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n future research. Although  husbands  discrepancy)  also  and  wives  demonstrated  less  (with  larger  tendency  to  intimacy  specifically  d i s c l o s e t h e i r f e e l i n g s of anger, and g r e a t e r tendency  to engage  i n i n c r e a s e d c o n f l i c t , blaming or s e l f coping s t y l e s , draw  any  cause  entertain problems  the by  and  effect  possibility such  conclusions.  that  potentially  i f people destructive  furthermore do not d i s c l o s e t h e i r l i k e s , or and  feelings, the  gap  maintained.  then  each person's  between  experienced  and  However, attempt  ideal  to  coping  dislikes,  expecations  one  will  cannot  one  can  resolve  means  and  expectations, remain unmet  intimacy  will  be  120 POSSIBLE  LIMITATIONS  Although  the  purpose of  this  particular,  the DAS  to  halo  term  desirability  and KMS  or by  variance  the  desirability past,  to  or  regardless  have  used  (1967)  to  Marlowe-Crowne  while  the  measure Social  desirability.  validity  Those  will  likely  with  higher  probably  report being  Obiorah,  Copeland,  social  A  of  who  correlation subjects who  social  Desirability correlation  respond  Scale between  i s probable  used  (although  desirability  with  levels  very  of  happy &  social  (Schumrn,  Bugaighis,  less  Paff-Bergen, This  corners of a s c a t t e r p l o t Therefore,  seems unavoidable describe t h e i r  even  marriage  may  social those  desirability  1986).  In  Marital  report being very unhappy while  Meens,  desirability.  marital  marital  could then show l a r g e numbers of subjects i n the lower upper r i g h t  social  Edmonds's  and m a r i t a l s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y  likely).  repond  of  f o r up to twice as much.  social  who  sort  is a  for  c o r r e l a t i o n s with measures of i n d i v i d u a l  desirability  susceptible  s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y c o u l d account  scale  less  In  to M i t c h e l l ,  the  be  of  problems.  i n marital satisfaction  social  marital satisfaction  the  and  Scale  the  study  certain  for  Newell,  could account  Conventionalization  (1960)  According  researchers  desirability  adequate  (1967) to d e s c r i b e a  set.  up  social  were  Scale can be p o t e n t i a l l y  Edmonds  response  of  employed  "marital c o n v e n t i o n a l i z a t i o n , " which  individual  14%  STUDY  they can present  Schumrn (1983), to  THIS  measures  study,  effects  suggested  OF  will Hatch,  pattern left  and  of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n  and  a  significant  i f the  sample  as happy but  did not  positive include perfect.  121 Schumm, (1985) some but  Anderson,  Benigas,  controlled  of  the  could  present somewhat  it  reduced  Schumm,  by  the  as  normality  a  since  one cannot  measures  shorter Scale  and  version (which  desirability al.,  the to the  of  DAS  and  contaminated  the  by  has  correlated  the  DAS, a t h r e a t  desirability.  KMSS  between  be i n the 0.42-0.54  a  of  the  correlation correlation  Scale  This  is  (1983)  social  t o v a l i d i t y may s t i l l  any  relations  the  for case, it with  below.  DAS w i t h  a  Conventionalization of of  classic 0.71  studies  the  desirability be present  et  Edmonds's have  found  desirability  because  Although  social  (Schumm  between  to suggest  problematic  had  reduction.  In  and s o c i a l  seems  desirability.  with marital  Other  since  desirability,  used  those  be  distribution  potential  0.60.  KMSS  range.  KMSS  social  less  found  Jurich  KMSS  Marital  would  interview  findings presented  (1967)  In the  self-administered  for social  resembling  also  a  skewed) .  colleagues  and found a  distributions,  desirability  its  research  fellow  and the  correlation  of  reduced  altogether.  and  the  control  aware  items  They  as  social  They  score  face-to-face  that  Edmonds's  scales)  scale  of  a n d Race  desirability  was n e g a t i v e l y  some  his  has  1986).  shorter  become  KMSS  Bollman,  completely  to  of  social  a  showed (it  by reviewing  Schumm  in  means  tests  was n o t n o r m a l  important  than  Poresky,  wives  is  using  Morris  desirability.  desirability  that  rather  this  social  was h o p e d  Milliken,  suggested  social  Griffin,  characteristics  not eliminate  questionnaire  Still  for marital  nonnormal  study,  McCutchen,  that  use of  they KMSS  are Scale  compared  due t o  to  social  122 (1992)  In contrast, R u s s e l l and Wells couples  and  concluded  that  d e s i r a b i l i t y were unrelated desirability quality  was  found  of marriage  quality  when  many  couples  actually  do.  between  Edmonds's  satisfaction not  They  scales  a social  quality.  further  As f o r husbands,  social  beneficial  to questions  a  attribute  effect  about  good  the high  scale,  that  argued they  correlations Scale  and  Edmonds's s c a l e i s  but a poor  logically  on  marital  marriage  Conventionalization  to the p o s s i b i l i t y  that  social  to have  Marital  They s t a t e  and  R u s s e l l and Wells t h e r e f o r e  claim  desirability  marriage  a weak  but responses  q u a l i t y were not d i s t o r t e d . that  of  i n wives.  to have  examined data from 94  an item  scale  of m a r i t a l  such as "My mate  completely understands me and sympathizes with my every mood" i s an extreme item.  Anyone who responds "True" cannot be c o r r e c t .  However, they argue that such items are examples of a poor model of  "binary  a l t e r n a t i v e s " and that  such forced choice  may not capture the true perception good  marriage.  Furthermore,  not  correlate  expected.  highly  (0.44)  of an average person  Messick  measure of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ,  (1989)  marital  with  techniques  found  in a  that  as a  conventionalization d i d  the MMPI  L i e scale  as was  Instead, the c o r r e l a t i o n between Edmonds's s c a l e and  the Locke-Wallace MAT was 0 . 6 3 . mixed e m p i r i c a l desirability  In any case, although there i s  evidence regarding  and  scales  used  by  the r e l a t i o n between this  study,  social  i t is  still  important t o be aware of t h i s issue as a p o s s i b l e confound. Limitations by  the weak  to external  aspects  and i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y  of measures  being  used  are imposed  (such  as low  123 reliability).  For  example,  because  of  the  lower  reliability  demonstrated by the wives' d i f f e r e n c e scores, i t i s important keep i n mind that the wives' reflect  a  lack  intimacy.  of  intimacy d i f f e r e n c e scores may  disparity  Therefore,  caution  about  exercised  may  ideal  u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the measure of intimacy d i f f e r e n c e . be  scores  and  potential  should  the  perceived  not  reflect  wives'  Rather,  between  to  i n drawing  conclusions  discrepancy between t h e i r perceived and  ideal  the  levels  of  intimacy. Limitations imposed  by  majority  to  the  sample  of the  generalizable implications  external  members  should  internal  selection.  sample was  to  and  be  For  Caucasian, of  other  validity  example,  the  are  because  f i n d i n g s may  ethnic  also  not  cultures.  c a u t i o u s l y made regarding  the be  Second,  the  intimacy  l e v e l i n a few of the cases where the PAIR'S Intimacy D i f f e r e n c e scores were negative higher  than  discrepant  the  (as a r e s u l t  ideal  intimacy  of the p e r c e i v e d score  score).  People  scores could be  relationship  or  in  with  different  perceive  their  what  addition,  because of sample c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  such  negative  i n the  they  being  way  they  expect.  caution  In  should  be  e x e r c i s e d i n applying the r e g r e s s i o n equation to p r e d i c t m a r i t a l satisfaction accuracy cross  of  f o r other new the  prediction  validation  studies samples.  should  was  attempt  not to  samples since shrinkage are done  issues. in  the  In  any  present  cross v a l i d a t e  the  and event,  study,  reduced while future  f i n d i n g s on  new  124 In a d d i t i o n to the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , there i s a l i m i t detail  and  richness of  report questionnaires yet  some  information  obtained.  i n this correlational  researchers  argue  that  The  study  observation  use  to of  was  the self  valuable,  and  interview  methods g e n e r a l l y y i e l d a great deal of d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n that  the  richness  experimental properties may  such  testing. of  measures may the  On  for  this  potential than  a  showed more  in  halo  effect,  normally  although  observation  would.  For  important  weaknesses future  to  of  data  be  this  aware study's  collection  a d d i t i o n to surveys  to  example,  affect  and  more  of  the  design  involve  i n order  strengths and  i t is  interviews  observer  negative  as  act  Gottman  i n t e r a c t i o n at home with an  negative  some  methods  participants  r e c i p r o c i t y than t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n i n the l a b o r a t o r y . is  artificial  ease i n s c o r i n g  Furthermore,  encouraging  (1979) found that couples' present  lost  measures and  limit.  for  they  is  the other hand, the good psychometric  demonstrate  differently  information  certain self-report  compensate  have  of  and  affect  Hence, i t  well  as  recommended  and  the that  observations  in  to obtain r i c h e r and more d e t a i l e d  i n f o r m a t i o n about m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and i t s p r e d i c t o r s . In a d d i t i o n , another aspect design  i s the  "snapshot  s a t i s f a c t i o n at one time.  One  satisfaction last  or  marital  approach"  taken  to  assessing  from  this  success  of  study's  results.  d i s i n t e g r a t e regardless satisfaction  improved i n t h i s  study's marital  point i n time rather than over a p e r i o d  cannot p r e d i c t the simply  to be  and  marital  of  a marriage or  stability  are  future  Marriages  satisfaction. not  of  may  That  is,  the  same  125 thing.  Likewise,  stability  and m a r i t a l  dimensions. considered  Quality along  m a r i t a l success The is,  and  quality  as  can vary  with  (1979)  Spanier two  stability  in  marital  and d i f f e r e n t  i n a marriage studying  and  should  be  or  predicting  (Glenn, 1990; Robinson & Blanton, 1 9 9 3 ) .  i t would  be worthwhile  findings,  it  may  satisfaction.  to consider  satisfaction longitudinally.  Krokoff's  viewed  separate  same t h i n g can be s a i d f o r m a r i t a l  perhaps  studying  Lewis  That  stability  by  According t o Gottman and  be  that  the  same  set  of  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which define a c u r r e n t l y s a t i s f y i n g marriage do not  necessarily  Certain  factors  significant time.  define  a more  can change  i n their  s a t i s f y i n g marriage  or other  contribution  factors  over  can become  more  happiness  over  to m a r i t a l  For example, c o n s i s t e n t with Gottman and Krokoff's  findings,  disagreement  and anger  exchanges  time.  can be  (1989)  r e l a t e d to  unhappiness and negative i n t e r a c t i o n at home concurrently, then can be p r e d i c t i v e longitudinally.  of improvement  from  i n marital s a t i s f a c t i o n  The i s s u e of l o n g i t u d i n a l e f f e c t s i s beyond the  scope of t h i s study and begs f u r t h e r Aside  but  the  above  issues,  research. some  questions  are not  addressed by t h i s present i n v e s t i g a t i o n because they are beyond the scope of t h i s study. intimacy,  open communication,  depth, amount, various interact  For example, e x a c t l y how are i d e a l i z e d  to  and coping  related?  facilitate  relationship  do the  types and r e c i p r o c i t y of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e intimacy,  marital  satisfaction  m a r i t a l therapy outcome f o r i n d i v i d u a l s and dyads? causal  How  between  self-disclosure  and  Is there and  a  marital  126 s a t i s f a c t i o n or s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and the  directions  of  these  causal  intimacy?  I f so,  relations?  How  can  v a r i a b l e s be incorporated i n t o a t h e o r e t i c a l model? best  means  maximize  of  a  couple's  possibility marital  integrating  for  findings  satisfaction?  future  therapy  the  research  lies  in  a  simultaneous  an  the  increase  these  to  help  interesting  question:  couple's  are  What i s the  practice  Also,  s u c c e s s f u l l y enhances a  does i t a l s o produce  in  what  When  satisfaction,  in  communication  scores, intimacy scores and coping scores? Finally,  this  study  t r e a t e d husbands'  and  wives'  marital  s a t i s f a c t i o n as separate scores but future i n v e s t i g a t i o n s should also  combine  the  husband  and  that represents the couple. interpreting  and  checking  s i n c e research has controversial  wife  scores  Of course, the  validity  into  a  dyadic  score  care should be taken i n of  the  combined  scores  i d e n t i f i e d the v a l i d i t y of such scores to be  (Walters,  Pittman,  Such questions along with  & Norell,  the concepts  1984;  White,  1984).  discussed i n t h i s  paper  deserve g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n i n future research. Implications The generate First,  for  present more  the  Research study  questions,  data  could be  and  intended and  Counseling to  offer  contribute several  used to v a l i d a t e  and  to  research,  recommendations. give  clinicians  exposure to s e v e r a l instruments. Second,  identification  of  good  predictors  for  s a t i s f a c t i o n can guide c l i n i c i a n s i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n s and to help a couple e n r i c h t h e i r  marriage.  marital efforts  127 Third, and  the  questions  predictors  generation will  of  communication,  of  new  hopefully  marital  information,  rekindle  satisfaction  research such  as  this  impetus  for  marital  ideals,  study's  research  findings w i l l  on  coping  the  dynamics  understanding  of  contribute  to  marital  inferences  about  openness  in  the  behaviors by  importance  to  which  satisfaction.  of marriage  may  of such  among  of  To  date,  variables.  these  a  better  variables results  individual  the  communication,  enable  Fourth,  e v a l u a t i o n s of one's spouse and marriage. experience  in  hopefully provide  interactions  and  data  interest  i d e a l i z e d intimacy and coping e f f o r t s .  no s t u d i e s have been done on the combination Furthermore,  empirical  may  provide  perceptions  and  The question of one's  not be dependent as much on what i s  r e a l i t y but what the i n d i v i d u a l construes as r e a l or i d e a l . Finally, theories  and  importance during  the  models  of  and  be  ( i . e . such  as  beneath  the  diving  clinical  beliefs  f i n d i n g s may  sessions  expectations  to  used the  by  support  Satir  the  existing  model) about  superficial  explore  held  to  content  deeper  individuals.  the  level  yearnings,  Satir  (1967)  claimed that m a r i t a l partners frequently p e r c e i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n their  expectations  marriage.  They may  or  desires  coerce  as  compliance  to have t h e i r i d e a l expectations met. harmony  and  satisfaction  evaluates h i s / her marriage  in  evidence  of  problems  from each other  i n order  This i n t u r n a f f e c t s  marriage.  The  individual  expectations i s more l i k e l y to be disappointed. - Instead, that  the who  i n terms of u n r e a l i s t i c b e l i e f s  on the r e s u l t s of t h i s study, one could hypothesize  in  and  based  couples  128 should  be  encouraged  relationship negotiate  and  to  lower  them with  likely  coping the  be  greater  the  an  behaviors.  them  their  the p a r t n e r to f u l f i l l will  disclose to  render  partner,  or  in  In turn,  expectations them  and  E i t h e r way,  self-disclosure  positive  perception  the  more a t t a i n a b l e ,  of  the  with  result  and  positive  effect  exists,  will  heighten  and  marital  several  practical  i f a bidirectional  self-disclosure  of  c o o p e r a t i v e l y work  the expectations.  increase  individual's  their  coping  intimacy  satisfaction. In  addition  implications First,  to  theoretical  could  follow  from  the various instruments  examples  of  assessment  contemplating psychometric  the  the  findings  in this  study  tools  use  of  properties)  implications,  for  of  may  therapists  Second,  serve as a guide f o r p r i o r i t i z i n g focus i n therapy  and  f a c t o r s that c o n t r i b u t e to m a r i t a l problems. i t seems  appropriate  to  highlight  the  good are  adequate  may  results,  as  who  (with  practice.  study.  serve  questionnaires  in their  this  the on  data  issues  Based on  the  importance  of  p e r c e i v e d discrepancy between i d e a l i z e d and a c t u a l intimacy as a stronger  characteristic  marriage.  This  expectations  of  suggests  regarding  couples' that  dissatisfaction  questions  intimacy  about  should  Moreover,  psychotherapy  may  facilitate  improvement  i n a couple's  marriage  combines a f f e c t i v e as  anger),  resolution  (eg. by  behavioral or  coping  focusing on  a  maximize  by  focusing  skills),  and  cognitive  and  priority  in  change  and  i f the t h e r a p i s t  disclosed feelings  (eg.  their  perceptions  have  treatment.  with  on  such  the  conflict  (eg. by  exploring  129 unmet expectations and  i d e a l s ) s t r a t e g i e s with the spouses.  In  p a r t i c u l a r , a greater focus on the c o g n i t i v e components might  be  warranted  as  and  Satir's  t h e r a p i s t s may  iceberg  expectations  (Satir,  are  awareness  of  the  designed  to  important  to  regarding  benefit  satisfaction.  Thus  from  importance  and  one's  distressing  developing  of  an  attending  development of  during  to:  also  play  skills. of  self-disclosure  These  therapy;  features  however,  expectations  pivotal  t h e r a p i s t s should  use  programs are c u r r e n t l y  skills.  one's  and  seeking m a r i t a l  listening,  marital  that  coping  therapists i n their  in active  resolution  recognize  intimacy  that  for  i n t e r v e n t i o n s with c l i e n t s  couples  target  such  e x p l i c i t communication of expectations  or b e h a v i o r a l c o n f l i c t valuable  emphasizes  Many workshops, books, and  to t r a i n  to models  foundation  h o p e f u l l y guide  assessment t o o l s and counseling.  a  may  intimacy,  This awareness w i l l  refer  which  comparative  emotional  to  perceptions and coping behaviors.  therapists  communication s k i l l s , desires,  1991),  essentially  f e e l i n g s , maladaptive Finally,  wish  not  it  or  roles  in  ignore  are is  ideals marital  techniques  which focus on f a c i l i t a t i n g these aspects of intimacy. In  conclusion,  the  results  demographic v a r i a b l e s and contribute  to  marital  coping  of  this  strategies  satisfaction.  The  d i s c l o s u r e as w e l l as f u l f i l l e d expectations  study do  imply  that  not n e c e s s a r i l y  presence  of  self-  (or i d e a l i z a t i o n  of  the r e l a t i o n s h i p ' s intimacy l e v e l ) are fundamental p r e d i c t o r s of marital  satisfaction  and  should  thus  be  viewed  components to work with during m a r i t a l therapy.  as  essential  130 References Altman, I., & Haythorn, W.W. (1965). I n t e r p e r s o n a l i n i s o l a t i o n . Sociometrv. 28. 522.  exchange  Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). S o c i a l p e n e t r a t i o n . York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.  New  Anderson, S.A., Bagarozzi, D.A., Giddings, C.W. (1986). IMAGES: P r e l i m i n a r y s c a l e c o n s t r u c t i o n . The American J o u r n a l of Family Therapy, 14, 357-3 63. Angyal, A. (1965). Neurosis theory. New York: John Wiley.  and treatment: A h o l i s t i c  A n t i l l , J.K., & Cotton, S. (1987). S e l f d i s c l o s u r e between husbands and wives: I t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to sex r o l e s and m a r i t a l happiness. A u s t r a l i a n Journal of Psychology. 39. 11 - 24. Argyle, M., & Furnham, A. (1983). Sources of s a t i s f a c t i o n and c o n f l i c t i n long-term r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45. 481-493. Atkinson, R.L., Atkinson, R.C., Smith, E.E., & Bern, D.J. (1993) . I n t r o d u c t i o n to psychology (11th ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Bach, G., & Wyden, P. W i l l i a m Morrow and Co.  (1969). The  Bach, G.R., & Wyden, P. York: W i l l i a m Morrow.  intimate enemy. New  (1968). The  intimate enemy.  York: New  Bagarozzi, D.A., & Giddings, C.W. (1983). Behavioral m a r i t a l therapy: E m p i r i c a l status, current p r a c t i c e s , trends and f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s . C l i n i c a l S o c i a l Work J o u r n a l . 11. 263-280. Bagarozzi, D.A., & Giddings, C.W. (1984). The r o l e of c o g n i t i v e constructs and a t t r i b u t i o n a l processes i n f a m i l y therapy: I n t e g r a t i n g i n t r a p e r s o n a l , i n t e r p e r s o n a l and systems dynamics. In L.A. Wolberg & M.L. aronson (Eds.), Group and f a m i l y therapy 1983: An overview. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Barr, L. (1993). Basic f a c t s on f a m i l i e s i n Canada, past and present (Catalogue No. 89-516) . Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, M i n i s t e r of Industry, Science and Technology. Baucom, D., Notarius, C , Burnett, C , & Haefner, P. (1990) . Gender d i f f e r e n c e s and sex-role i d e n t i t y i n marriage. In F.D. Fincham & T.N. Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of marriage: B a s i c i s s u e s and a p p l i c a t i o n s . New York: G u i l f o r d Press.  131 Berger, C.R., & Bradac, J . J . (1982). Language and s o c i a l knowledge. London: Edward Arnold. Berman, E.M., & L i e f , H.I. (1975). M a r i t a l intimacy from a p s y c h i a t r i c p e r s p e c t i v e : An overview. American J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y . 132. 583-592. Bienvenu, M.J. (1970). Measurement o f m a r i t a l communication. Family Coordinator. 19. 2 6 - 3 1 . B i l l i n g s , A.G., & Moos, R.H. (1984). Coping, s t r e s s , and s o c i a l resources among adults with u n i p o l a r depression. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y & S o c i a l Psychology. 46. 887-891. B i r c h l e r , G.R., Weiss, R.L., & Vincent, J.P. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Multimethod a n a l y s i s o f s o c i a l reinforcement exchange between m a r i t a l l y d i s t r e s s e d and nondistressed spouse and s t r a n g e r dyads. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 31. 349360 .  B i r c h n e l l , J . (1988). The assessment o f the m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p by q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Sexual and M a r i t a l Therapy, 57-70.  3.  B i r t c h n e l l , J . (1994). M a r i t a l intimacy: A response t o Rampage and G o r e l l Barnes. Journal of Family Therapy. 16. 340342.  Bochner, A., & Eisenberg, E. (1987). Family process: System p e r s p e c t i v e s . In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook o f communication science, (p. 5 4 0 - 5 6 3 ) . Beverly H i l l s : Sage. Bornstein, P.H., & Bornstein, M.T. (1986). M a r i t a l therapy: A behavioral-communications approach. E l s f o r d , NY: Pergamon Press. Bowen, G.L., & Orthner, D.K. (1983). Sex-role congruency and m a r i t a l q u a l i t y . Journal of Marriage and the Family. 4 5 . 223-230.  Bowlby, J . (1958). The nature of the c h i l d ' s t i e t o h i s mother. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Journal of Psychoanalysis. 39. 3 5 0 - 3 7 2 . Bowman, M.L. (1990) . Coping e f f o r t s and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n : Measuring m a r i t a l coping and i t s c o r r e l a t e s . J o u r n a l o f Marriage and the Family. 52. 463-474. Brighton-Cleghorn, J . (1987). Formulations of s e l f and f a m i l y systems. Family Process. 26. 198-201. Bugaighis, M.A., Schumm, W.R., Bollman, S.R., & J u r i c h , A.P. (1983). Locus of c o n t r o l and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of Psychology. 114. 275-279.  132  Burke, R., Weir, T . , & Harrison, D. (1976). D i s c l o s u r e of problems and tensions experienced by m a r i t a l p a r t n e r s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 38. 531-542. C a n f i e l d , K.R., Schumrn, W.R., Swihart, J . J . , & Eggerichs, E.E. (1990) . F a c t o r i a l v a l i d i t y of b r i e f s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e s i n surveys of Mormon, Roman C a t h o l i c s , and Protestant f a t h e r s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 67. 1319-1322. Carey, M.P., Spector, I.P., Lantinga, L . J . , & Krauss, D.J. (1993). R e l i a b i l i t y of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Assessment. 5. 238-240. Carpenter, J . (1986). And so they l i v e d h a p p i l y ever a f t e r : Intimacy and the i d e a l i z a t i o n of marriage: A comment on B i r t c h n e l l . J o u r n a l of Family Therapy. 8. 173-177. Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping s t r a t e g i e s : A t h e o r e t i c a l l y based approach. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 56. 267-283. Casas, J . , & O r t i z , S. (1985). E x p l o r i n g the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale f o r assessing l e v e l of m a r i t a l adjustment with Mexican Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 47. 1023-1027. Chang, L., Schumrn, W.R., Coulson, L.A., Bollman, S.R., & J u r i c h , A.P. (1994). Dimensionality of b r i e f family i n t e r a c t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e s among couples from eight western and midwestern s t a t e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 74. 131-144. Chelune, G.J., S k i f f i n g t o n , S., & Williams, C. (1981). A multidimensional a n a l y s i s of observers' p e r c e p t i o n s of s e l f d i s c l o s i n g behavior. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 41. 599-606. C l i n e , R.W. (1989) . The p o l i t i c s of intimacy: Costs and b e n e f i t s determining d i s c l o s u r e intimacy i n male-female dyads. J o u r n a l of S o c i a l and Personal R e l a t i o n s h i p s . 6. 5-20. C l i n e b e l l , H.J. & C l i n e b e l l , C H . marriage. New York: Harper and Row.  (1970). The i n t i m a t e  Cohan, C.L., & Bradbury, T.N. (1994). A s s e s s i n g responses to r e c u r r i n g problems i n marriage: E v a l u a t i o n of the M a r i t a l Coping Inventory. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Assessment. 6. 191-200. Cohen, J . , & Cohen, P. (1983). A p p l i e d m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n / c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s f o r the behavioral s c i e n c e s . (2nd e d . ) . H i l l s d a l e , New Jersey: Erlbaum.  133 Cohen, P. (1985). Family measurement techniques: Locke M a r i t a l Adjustment Scale and the Dyadic Adjustment S c a l e . American J o u r n a l of Family Therapy. 13. 297-334. Coyne, J . C , & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going beyond s o c i a l support: The r o l e of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n a d a p t a t i o n . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 54. 454-460. Cozby, P.C. (1973). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e : A l i t e r a t u r e review. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 79. 73-91. Craddock, A.E. (1977) . Relationships between a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m , m a r i t a l power expectations and m a r i t a l v a l u e systems. A u s t r a l i a n Journal of Psychology. 29. 211-221. Craddock, A.E. (1980). The e f f e c t of incongruent m a r i t a l r o l e expectations upon couples' degree of goal-value consensus i n the f i r s t year of marriage. A u s t r a l i a n J o u r n a l of Psychology. 32. 117-125. Crago, M., & Tharp, R.G. (1968). Psychopathology and m a r i t a l r o l e disturbance: A t e s t of the Tharp-Otis d e s c r i p t i v e hypothesis. J o u r n a l of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 32. 338-341. Crohan, S.E., & V e r o f f , J . (1989). Dimensions of m a r i t a l w e l l - b e i n g among white and black newlyweds. J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family. 51. 373-383. Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new s c a l e of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y independent of psychopathology. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g Psychology. 24. 349-354. Dahms, A. Pruett.  (1972). Emotional intimacy. Denver, Colorado:  Derlega, W.J. & Chaikin, A.L. (1975) . Sharing intimacy. What we r e v e a l to others and why. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : Prentice-Hall. Eddy, M.J., Heyman, R.E., & Weiss, R.L. (1991). An e m p i r i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of the dyadic adjustment s c a l e : E x p l o r i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s between m a r i t a l " s a t i s f a c t i o n " and "adjustment". Behavioral Assessment. 13. 199-220. Edmonds, V.H. (1967). M a r i t a l c o n v e n t i o n l i z a t i o n : d e f i n i t i o n and measurement. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 21, 681-688. Eggeman, K., Moxley, V., & Schumm, W.R. (1985). A s s e s s i n g spouses' p e r c e p t i o n s of Gottman's temporal form i n m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 57. 171-181.  134  E p s t e i n , N., & Eidelson, R.J. (1981). U n r e a l i s t i c b e l i e f s of c l i n i c a l couples: T h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to e x p e c t a t i o n s , goals, and s a t i s f a c t i o n . The American Journal of Family Therapy. 9. 1322 . Erickson,E. W.W.Norton.  (1950). Childhood and s o c i e t y . New  York:  Ernhardt, C.B., & Loevinger, J . (1969). A u t h o r i t a r i a n f a m i l y i d e o l o g y : A measur, i t s c o r r e l a t e s , and i t s robustness. M u t i v a r i a t e Behavioural Research Monographs. 1. 1-82. F a l i c o v , C , & Karrer, B. (1980). C u l t u r a l v a r i a t i o n s i n the family l i f e c y c l e : The Mexican-American f a m i l y . In E.A. C a r t e r & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The family l i f e c v c l e : A framework f o r family therapy (pp. 383-425). New York: Gardner Press. F i l s i n g e r , E., & Thoma, S. (1988). B e h a v i o r a l antecedents of r e l a t i o n s h i p s t a b i l i t y and adjustment: A f i v e - y e a r l o n g i t u d i n a l study. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 50. 785795. F i s c h e r , J . , & Corcoran, K. (1994). Measures f o r c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e : A sourcebook (2nd ed.). Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada. F i t z p a t r i c k , M.A. (1987). M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n . In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication s c i e n c e (pp. 564618). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. F i t z p a t r i c k , M.A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication i n marriage. Beverly H i l l s , CA: SAGE P u b l i c a t i o n s , Inc. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). An a n a l y s i s of coping i n a middle-aged community sample. Journal of H e a l t h and S o c i a l Behavior. 21. 219-239. Frank, E., Anderson, C , & Rubinstein, D. (1980). M a r i t a l r o l e i d e a l s and p e r c e p t i o n of m a r i t a l r o l e behavior i n d i s t r e s s e d and non d i s t r e s s e d couples. J o u r n a l of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy. 6. 55-63. G a l v i n , K.M. (1985). Family communication workshops. Annandale, VA: SCA/ERIC. In K.M. G a l v i n & B.J. Brommel, Family communication: Cohesion and change (3rd ed.).New York: Harper C o l l i n s P u b l i s h e r s , Inc.  135 G a l v i n , K.M. & Brommel, B.J. (1991). Family communication: Cohesion and change (3rd ed.). New York: Harper C o l l i n s P u b l i s h e r s , Inc. Geiss, S.K., & O'Leary, K.D. (1981). T h e r a p i s t r a t i n g s of frequency and s e v e r i t y of m a r i t a l problems: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r research. J o u r n a l of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy. 7. 515-520. G i l b e r t , S.J. (1976). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , intimacy and communication i n f a m i l i e s . Family Coordinator. 25. 221-231. Glenn, N.D. (1990). Q u a n t i t a t i v e research on m a r i t a l q u a l i t y i n the 1980's: A c r i t i c a l review. J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family. 52. 818-831. Gottman, J.M. (1979). M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n : Experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . New York: Academic Press. Gottman, J.M., & Krokoff, L . J . (1989). M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n : A l o n g i t u d i n a l view. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 57, 47-52. Gottman, J.M., & Krokoff, L . J . (1990). Complex s t a t i s t i c s are not always c l e a r e r than simple s t a t i s t i c s : A r e p l y t o Woody and Costanzo. J o u r n a l of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 58. 499-501. Gottman, J.M., Markman, H.J., & Notarius, C.I. (1977). The topography of m a r i t a l c o n f l i c t : A s e q u e n t i a l a n a l y s i s of v e r b a l and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 49. 461-477. Gottman, J.M., Notarius, C.I., Markman, H.J., Banks, D., Yoppi, B., & Rubin, M.E. (1976). Behavior exchange theory and m a r i t a l d e c i s i o n making. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 34. 14-23. Gove, W.R., Hughes, M., and S t y l e , C B . (1983). Does marriage have p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s on the p s y c h o l o g i c a l w e l l - b e i n g of the i n d i v i d u a l ? Journal of Health and S o c i a l Behavior, 24. 122-131. Grover, K.J., Paff-Bergen, L.A., R u s s e l l , C.S., & Schumm, W.R. (1984) . The Kansas M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n S c a l e : A f u r t h e r b r i e f r e p o r t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 54, 629-630. Gruen, W. (1964). Adult p e r s o n a l i t y : An e m p i r i c a l study of Erickson's theory of ego development. In B.L. Neugarten (Ed.) P e r s o n a l i t y i n middle and l a t e l i f e . New York: P r e n t i c e H a l l . Hahlweg, K., Revenstorf, D., & Schindler, L. (1984). E f f e c t s of b e h a v i o r a l m a r i t a l therapy on couples' communication  136 and problem-solving s k i l l s . Journal of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 52. 553-566. H a l l , J.A. & Taylor, S.E. (1976). When love i s b l i n d and m a i n t a i n i n g i d e a l i z e d images of one's spouse. Human R e l a t i o n s . 29_, 751-762. Hames, J . , & Waring, E.M. (1980). M a r i t a l intimacy and nonp s y c h o t i c emotional i l l n e s s . P s y c h i a t r i c Forum. 9. 13-19. Hansen, J.E., Schuldt, W.J. (1984). M a r i t a l s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy. 46. 923-926. Harlow, H.F. & Zimmerman, R.R. (1953) . A f f e c t i o n a l responses i n the i n f a n t monkey. Science. 130. Hatch, R.C., James, D.L., & Schumrn, W.R. (1986). S p i r i t u a l intimacy and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . Family R e l a t i o n s . 35. 539545. Hendrick, S.S. (1981). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 40. 1150 - 1159. Hendrix, C.C., & A n e l l i , L.M. (1993). Impact of Vietnam War s e r v i c e on veterans' perceptions of family l i f e . Familv R e l a t i o n s . 42. 87-92. Hendrix, H. (1992). Keeping the love you f i n d : A guide f o r s i n g l e s . New York: Pocket Books. Hess, R., & Handel, G. (1959). Family worlds. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press. Heyman, R.E., Weiss, R.L., & Eddy, J.M. (1990). Readjusting "dyadic adjustment": Toward a more u s e f u l c l i n i c a l assessment of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . In R.L. Weiss (Chair), Why 9 out of 10 m a r i t a l t h e r a p i s t s should not p r e f e r s a t i s f a c t i o n . Symposium conducted a t the 24th Annual Convention of the A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, San F r a n c i s c o . H o b f o l l , S.E., & Lerman, M. (1988). Personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , personal a t t r i b u t e s , and s t r e s s r e s i s t a n c e : Mothers' r e a c t i o n s to t h e i r c h i l d ' s i l l n e s s . American Journal of Community Psychology. 16. 565-590. Holahan, C.J., & Moos, R.H. (1987). Personal and c o n t e x t u a l determinants of coping s t r a t e g i e s . Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 52. 946-955.  137 Holmes, T.H., & Rahe, R.H. (1967). The s o c i a l readjustment r a t i n g s c a l e . J o u r n a l of Psychosomatic Research. 11. 213-218. Howell, A., & Conway, M. (1990). Perceived intimacy of expressed emotion. The Journal of S o c i a l Psychology. 13 0. 467476. H u r v i t z , N., & Komarovsky, M. (1977). Husbands and wives: Middle c l a s s and working c l a s s . In C. Greenblatt et a l . (Eds.), The marriage game (2nd ed.). New York: Random House. Jacobson, N.S., Waldron, H., & Moore, D. (1980). Toward a b e h a v i o r a l p r o f i l e of m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 48. 696-703. Jeong, G.J., Bollman, S.R., & Schumm, W.R. (1992). S e l f reported m a r i t a l i n s t a b i l i t y as c o r r e l a t e d with the Kansas M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale f o r a sample of midwestern wives. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 70. 243-246. Johnson, D.R., White, L.K., Edwards, J.N., & Booth, A. (1986) . Dimensions of m a r i t a l q u a l i t y . J o u r n a l of Family Issues. 7, 31-49. Johnson, S.M., & Greenberg, L.S. (1985). E m o t i o n a l l y focused couples therapy: An outcome study. J o u r n a l of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy. 11. 313-317. Jourard, S.M. (1971a). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e : An experimental a n a l y s i s of the transparent s e l f . New York: Wiley, 1971. Jourard, S.M. (1971b). The transparent s e l f Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Jourard, S.M.  (Rev.ed.).  (1971). S e l f d i s c l o s u r e . New York: Wiley,  1971. Jourard, S.M. & J a f f e e , P.E. (1970) . Influence of an inteviewer's d i s c l o s u r e on the s e l f - d i s c l o s i n g behavior of i n t e r v i e w e r s . J o u r n a l of Counseling Psychology. 17. 252-257. Jourard, S.M. & Richman, P. (1963). D i s c l o s u r e output and input i n c o l l e g e students. M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y . 14. 136148. Kazak, A.E., Jarmas, A., & S n i t z e r , L. (1988). The assessment of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n : An e v a l u a t i o n of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Family Psychology. 2. 82-91. K e l l e y , H.H., Cunningham, J.D., Grisham, J.A., Lefebvre, L.M., Sink, C.R., & Yablon, G. (1978). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n  138 cornments made during c o n f l i c t i n c l o s e heterosexual Roles. 4. 473-491.  p a i r s . Sex  Kolodny, R., Masters, W., & Johnson, V. (1982). Human s e x u a l i t y . Boston: L i t t l e Brown. Komarovsky, M. (1962) . Blue c o l l a r marriage. New York: Random House. Krokoff, L.J., Gottman, J.M., & Roy, A.K. (1988). Bluec o l l a r and w h i t e - c o l l a r m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n and communication o r i e n t a t i o n . Journal of S o c i a l and Personal R e l a t i o n s h i p s . 8. 5-  25.  Kurdek, L.A. (1991). C o r r e l a t e s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t i s f a c t i o n i n cohabiting gay and l e s b i a n couples: I n t e g r a t i o n of contextual, investment and problem-solving models. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 61. 910-922. Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, a p p r a i s a l and cooing. New York: Springer. Lederer, W., & Jackson, D.D. (1968). The mirages of marriage. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Lehtinen, M.W., & Smith, G.W. (1985). MATESIM: Computer a s s i s t e d marriaeg a n a l y s i s f o r family t h e r a p i s t s . J o u r n a l of Psychotherapy & the Family. 1. 117-131. Lerner, & Row.  H. (1989). The dance of intimacy. New York: Harper  Levenson, R.W., & Gottman, J.M. (1985). P h y s i o l o g i c a l and a f f e c t i v e p r e d i c t o r s of change i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t i s f a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 49. 85-94. Levinger, G., & Senn, D.J. (1967). D i s c l o s u r e of f e e l i n g s i n marriage. M e r r i l l Palmer Quarterly. 13. 237-249. Lewis, R.A., & Spanier, G.B. (1979). T h e o r i z i n g about the q u a l i t y and s t a b i l i t y of marriage. In W.R. Burr, R. H i l l , F . I . Nye, & I.L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary t h e o r i e s about the f a m i l y (Vol. I ) . New York: Free Press. L i t t l e j o h n , S. (1989). Theories of human communication ( 3 r d ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g . Lloyd, S.A. (1987). C o n f l i c t i n p r e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s : D i f f e r e n t i a l perceptions of males and females. Family R e l a t i o n s .  3_6_, 290-294.  139 Locke, H.J. (1951). P r e d i c t i n g adjustments i n marriage: A comparison of a divorced and a h a p p i l y married group. New York: Henry H o l t . In J.M. Gottman & L.J. Krokoff (1989), M a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n and s a t i s f a c t i o n : A l o n g i t u d i n a l view. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 57, 47-52. Locke, H.J., & Wallace, K.M. (1959). Short m a r i t a l adjustment and p r e d i c t i o n t e s t s : T h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . Marriage and Family L i v i n g . 21. 251-255. Lowenthal, M.F. & Haven, C. (1968). I n t e r a c t i o n and adaptation: Intimacy as a c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e . American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 33. 20-30. Malone, T., & Malone, P. York: P r e n t i c e - H a l l .  (1987). The a r t of intimacy.  New  Margolin, G., & Wampold, B.E. (1981). Sequential a n a l y s i s of c o n f l i c t and accord i n d i s t r e s s e d and n o n d i s t r e s s e d m a r i t a l p a r t n e r s . Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 49.  554-567.  Markman, H.J. (1979). A p p l i c a t i o n of a b e h a v i o r a l model of marriage i n p r e d i c t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r couples planning marriage. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 4. 743-749. Markman, H.J. (1979). A p p l i c a t i o n of a b e h a v i o r a l model of marriage i n p r e d i c t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s a t i s f a c t i o n of couples planning marriage. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 47. 743-779. M c A l l i s t e r , H.A. (1980) . S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and l i k i n g : E f f e c t s f o r senders and r e c e i v e r s . Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y . 48.  409-418.  McGoldrick, M. (1982). I r i s h f a m i l i e s . In M. McGoldrick, J . Pearce & J . Giordano (Eds.), E t h n i c i t y and f a m i l y therapy. New York: W.W. Norton. McGonagle, K.A., Kessler, R.C., & S c h i l l i n g , E.A. (1992). The frequency and determinants of m a r i t a l disagreements i n a community sample. Journal of S o c i a l and Personal R e l a t i o n s h i p s .  £, 507-524.  Menaghan, E. (1982). Measuring coping e f f e c t i v e n e s s : A panel a n a l y s i s of m a r i t a l problems and coping e f f o r t s . J o u r n a l of Health and S o c i a l Behavior. 23. 220-234. Menaghan, E.G. (1983). I n d i v i d u a l coping e f f o r t s and f a m i l y s t u d i e s : Conceptual and methodological i s s u e s . Marriage and Family Review, 6. 113-135.  140  Merves-Okin, L., Amidon, E., & Bernt, F. (1991). Perceptions of intimacy i n marriage: A study of married couples. The American J o u r n a l of Family Therapy. 19. 110 - 118. Messick, S. (1989). V a l i d i t y . In Linn, R.L. (Ed.), E d u c a t i o n a l measurement (pp.13-104). New York: Macmillan. M i l l e r , S.M., & K i r s c h , N. (1987). Sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e coping with s t r e s s . In R o s a l i n d C. Barnett, L. Biener, and G.K. Baruch (eds.), Gender and S t r e s s . New York: Free Press. Minuchin, S. (1974) . F a m i l i e s and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press. M i t c h e l l , S.L., Newell, G.K., & Schumrn, W.R. (1983). T e s t r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of the Kansas M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 53. 545-546. Montgomery, B.M. (1981). The form and f u n c t i o n of q u a l i t y communication i n marriage. Family R e l a t i o n s . 30. 21-30. Moore, K.A., & Waite, L . J . (1981). M a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n , e a r l y motherhood and e a r l y marriage. S o c i a l Forces. 60. 20-40. Moxley, V., Eggeman, K., & Schumrn, W.R. (1986). An e v a l u a t i o n of the "Recovery of Hope" program. J o u r n a l of Divorce. 10. 241-261. Murphy, K.R., & Davidshofer, C O . (1994). P s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g : P r i n c i p l e s and a p p l i c a t i o n s (3rd ed.) pg. 101. New Jersey: Prentice H a l l . Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G., & G r i f f i n , D.W. (1996). The b e n e f i t s of p o s i t i v e i l l u s i o n s : I d e a l i z a t i o n and the c o n s t r u c t i o n of s a t i s f a c t i o n i n c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 70. 79-98. Murstein, B.I., & Williams, P.D. (1983). Sex r o l e s and marriage adjustment. Small Group Behavior. 14. 77-94. N e t t l e s , E . J . & Loevinger, J . (1983). Sex r o l e expecations and ego l e v e l i n r e l a t i o n to problem marriages. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 45. 676-687. N o l l e r , P., & White, A. (1990). The v a l i d i t y of the Communication Patterns Questionnaire. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Assessment: A J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 2. 478-482. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring m a r i t a l q u a l i t y : A c r i t i c a l look at the dependent v a r i a b l e . Journal of Marriage and the Family. 45. 141-151.  141  Notarius, C.I., Benson, P.R., Sloane, D., V a n z e t t i , N.A., & Hornyak, L.M. (1989). E x p l o r i n g the i n t e r f a c e between p e r c e p t i o n and behavior: An a n a l y s i s of m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n d i s t r e s s e d and n o n d i s t r e s s e d couples. Behavioral Assessment. 11. 39-64. Notarius, C.I., & V a n z e t t i , N.A. (1983). M a r i t a l agendas p r o t o c o l . In E. F i l s i n g e r (Ed.), A sourcebook of marriage and f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n . Beverly H i l l s , CA: Sage. Pearce, W.B., & Sharp, S.M. (1973). S e l f - d i s c l o s i n g communication. Journal of Communication. 23. 409-425. P e a r l i n , L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The s t r u c t u r e of coping. J o u r n a l of Health and S o c i a l Behavior. 19. 2-21. Pearson, J . (1989). Communication i n the f a m i l y . New York: Harper & Row. Prager, K.J. (1986). Intimacy s t a t u s : I t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o locus of c o n t r o l , s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , and anxiety i n a d u l t s . P e r s o n a l i t y & S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n . 12. 91-109. Raush, H.J., Barry, W.A., H e r t e l , R.K., & Swain, M.A. (1974) . Communication, c o n f l i c t , and marriage. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass. Reiss, D. (1981). The family's c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y . Cambridge, MA: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press. Roach, A.J., F r a z i e r , L.P., & Bowden, S.R. (1981). The M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale: Development of a measure f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n research. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 43. 537-546. Roberts, L . J . , & Krokoff, L . J . (1990). A t i m e - s e r i e s a n a l y s i s of withdrawal, h o s t i l i t y , and d i s p l e a s u r e i n s a t i s f i e d and d i s s a t i s f i e d marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 51. 95-105. Robinson, L.C., & Blanton, P.W. (1993). M a r i t a l s t r e n g t h s i n enduring marriages. Family Relations. 42. 38-45. Rosenfeld, L.B., & Bowen, G.L. (1991). M a r i t a l d i s c l o s u r e and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n : D i r e c t - e f f e c t versus i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t models. Western Journal of Speech Communication. 55. 6984. R u s s e l l , L. (1990). Sex and couples therapy: A method of treatment to enhance p h y s i c a l and emotional intimacy. J o u r n a l of Sex & M a r i t a l Therapy. 16. 111-120.  142 R u s s e l l , R.J.H., & Wells, P.A. (1992). S o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and q u a l i t y of marriage. P e r s o n a l i t y and I n d i v i d u a l D i f f e r e n c e s . 13_, 787-791. S a b a t e l l i , R.M. (1988). Measurement i s s u e s i n m a r i t a l research: A review and c r i t i q u e of contemporary survey instruments. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50. 891-915. Sabourin, S., Laporte, L., & Wright, J . (1990). Problem s o l v i n g s e l f - a p p r a i s a l and coping e f f o r t s i n d i s t r e s s e d and n o n d i s t r e s s e d couples. Journal of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy. 1£, 89-97. Sabourin, S., L u s s i e r , Y., Laplante, B., & Wright, J . (1990) . Unidimensional and multidimensional models of dyadic adjustment: A h i e r a r c h i c a l r e c o n c i l i a t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 2. 333-337 . S a t i r , V. (1967) . Conjoint family therapy. Palo A l t o , CA : Science & Behavior Books. S a t i r , V. (1972). People making. C a l i f o r n i a : Science Behavior Books Inc. S a t i r , V., Banmen, J . , Gerber, J . , & Gomori, M. S a t i r Model. C a l i f o r n i a : Science and Behavior Books.  and  (1991).  The  Sayers, S.L., Baucom, D.H., Goldman Sher, T., Weiss, R.L., & Heyman, R.E. (1991). C o n s t r u c t i v e engagement, b e h a v i o r a l m a r i t a l therapy, and changes i n m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . B e h a v i o r a l Assessment. 13. 25-49. Scarf, M. (1987) . Intimate p a r t n e r s : Patterns i n love and marriage. New York: B a l l a n t i n e Books. Schaefer, M.T. & Olson, D.H. (1981). Assessing intimacy: The P a i r Inventory. Journal of M a r i t a l and Family Therapy. 7. 47-60. Schlesinger, B. (1983). L a s t i n g and f u n c t i o n i n g marriages i n the 1980's. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health. 2. 45-56. Schnarch, D.M. (1991). Constructing the sexual c r u c i b l e : An i n t e g r a t i o n of sexual and m a r i t a l therapy. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (p.121-122) . Schumrn, W., & Jackson, R.W. (1980). M a r i t a l communication or m a r i t a l adjustment? A b r i e f report on the M a r i t a l Communication Inventory. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 46. 441-442.  143 Schumrn, W., Anderson, S., & G r i f f i n , C. (1983). The M a r i t a l Communication Inventory. In E. F i l s i n g e r (ed.), A sourcebook f o r f a m i l y therapy (pp.191-208). Beverly H i l l s , Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s . Schumrn, W., Anderson, S., Race, G., Morris, J . , G r i f f i n , C , McCutchen, M., & Benigas, J . (1983). Construct v a l i d i t y of the M a r i t a l Communication Inventory. The J o u r n a l of Sex and M a r i t a l Therapy. 9. 153-162. Schumrn, W., Barnes, H., Bollman, S., J u r i c k , A., & Bugaighis, M. (1987). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n r e v i s i t e d . Family R e l a t i o n s . 34. 241-247. Schumrn, W.R., Anderson, S.A., Benigas, J.E., McCutchen, M.B., G r i f f i n , C.L., Morris, J.E., & Race, G.S. (1985). C r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y of the Kansas M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 56. 719-722. Schumrn, J u r i c h , A.P. satisfaction Sociology of  W.R., M i l l i k e n , G., Poresky, R.H., Bollman, S.R., (1983). Issues i n the measurement of m a r i t a l i n survey research. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of the Family. 13. 129-143.  &  Schumrn, W.R., Paff-Bergen, L.A., Hatch, R.C., Obiorah, F.C., Copeland, J.M., Meens, L.F., & Bugaighis, M.A. (1986). Concurrent and d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y of the Kansas M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48. 381387. Schumrn, W.R., Race, G.S., Morris, J.E., Anderson, S.A., G r i f f i n , C.L., McCutchen, M.B., & Benigas, J.E. (1981). D i m e n s i o n a l i t y of the M a r i t a l Communication Inventory and marital conventionalization: a t h i r d report. Psychological Reports. 48. 163-171. Segraves, R.T. Press.  (1982). M a r i t a l therapy. New  York: Plenum  Sharpley, C.F., & Cross, D.G. (1982). A psychometric e v a l u a t i o n of the Spanier Dyadic Adjustment Scale. J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family. 44. 739-741. Shaver, P., & O'Connor, C. (1986). Problems i n p e r s p e c t i v e . In C. T a v r i s (ed.), EvervWoman's emotional w e l l - b e i n g . New York: Prentice H a l l . S i l l a r s , A., Weisberg, J . , Burggraf, C , & Wilson, E. (1987). Content themes i n m a r i t a l conversations. Human Communication Research. 13. 495-528.  144 Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New s c a l e s f o r a s s e s s i n g the q u a l i t y of marriage and s i m i l a r dyads. J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family. 38, 15-28. Spanier, G.B. (1988). Assessing the strengths of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 2, 92-94. Spanier, G.B., & Lewis, R.A. (1980). M a r i t a l q u a l i t y : A review of the s e v e n t i e s . Journal of Marriage and the Family. 42. 825-839. Spanier, G.B., & Thompson, L. (1982). A c o n f i r m a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family. 44. 731-738. SPSS f o r Windows: Base system user's guide, r e l e a s e (1993). Chicago: M i c r o s o f t Corporation, SPSS Inc.  6.0  Stephen, T. (1986). Communication and interdependence i n g e o g r a p h i c a l l y separated r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Human Communication Research. 13. 191-210. Stephen, T., & Enholm, D. (1987). On l i n g u i s t i c and s o c i a l forms: Correspondences between metaphoric and i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Western Journal of Speech Communication. 51. 329344. S u i t o r , J . J . , & Pillemer, K. (1987). The presence of a d u l t c h i l d r e n : A source of s t r e s s f o r e l d e r l y couples' marriages ? J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family. 49. 717-725. H.S.  S u l l i v a n , H.S. Perry and M.C.  The i n t e r p e r s o n a l theory of p s y c h i a t r y . In Gowel (Eds.) (1953) New York: W.W. Norton.  Swensen, C.H., Eskew, R.W., & Kohlhepp, K.A. (1984). F i v e f a c t o r s i n long-term marriages. L i f e s t y l e s : A J o u r n a l of Changing Patterns. 7, 94-106. T a y l o r , D.A. & Altman, I. (1966) . Intimacy-scaled s t i m u l i f o r use i n research i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports. 19. 729-730. T o l s t e d t , B.E., & Stokes, J.P. (1984). S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e , intimacy, and the depenetration process. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y & S o c i a l Psychology. 46. 84-90. The families change. National  V a n i e r I n s t i t u t e of the Family. (1992) . Canadian i n t r a n s i t i o n : The i m p l i c a t i o n s and c h a l l e n g e s of (No.C92-090097-6). Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada, Welfare Grants D i v i s i o n .  145 T o u l i a t o s , J . , Perlmutter, B.F., & Straus, M.A. (editors) (1990). Handbook of family measurement techniques. Newbury Park, C a l i f o r n i a : SAGE P u b l i c a t i o n s , Inc. Tubman, J.G. (1991). A p i l o t study of f a m i l y l i f e among school-age c h i l d r e n of problem d r i n k i n g men: C h i l d , mother, and f a m i l y comparisons. Family Dynamics of A d d i c t i o n Q u a r t e r l y . 1. 10-20.  Tubman, J.G. (1993). Family r i s k f a c t o r s , p a r e n t a l a l c o h o l use, and problem behavior among school-age c h i l d r e n . Family R e l a t i o n s . 42. 8 1 - 8 6 . V e r o f f , J . , Douvan, E., & Kulka, R.A. (1981). The inner American: A s e l f - p o r t r a i t from 1957 to 1976. New York: Basic Books. Walsh, F. (1985). S o c i a l change, d i s e q u i l i b r i u m , and adaptation i n developing c o u n t r i e s : A Moroccan example. In J . Schwartzman (Ed.), Families and other systems (pp. 2 4 4 - 2 5 9 ) . New York: G u i l f o r d Press. Walters, L.H., Pittman, J.F., & N o r r e l l , J.E. (1984). Development of a q u a n t i t a t i v e measure of a family from s e l f r e p o r t s of family members. Journal of Family Issues. 5. 497-514. Wampold, B.E., & Freund, R.D. (1987). Use of m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n i n counseling psychology research: A f l e x i b l e dataa n a l y t i c s t r a t e g y . Journal of Counseling Psychology. 34. 372382 .  Waring, E.M. (1990) . S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e of personal c o n s t r u c t s . Family Process. 29. 399-413. Waring, E.M., & Chelune, G. (1983). M a r i t a l intimacy and s e l f d i s c l o s u r e . Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology. 39. 183 - 190. Waring, E.M., McElrath, D., M i t c h e l l , P., & Derry, M.E. (1981) . Intimacy and emotional i l l n e s s i n the general p o p u l a t i o n . Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 26, 167-172. Waring, E.M., Schaefer, B., & Fry, R. (1994). The i n f l u e n c e of t h e r a p e u t i c s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e on perceived m a r i t a l intimacy. Journal of Sex & M a r i t a l Therapy. 20. 135-146. Waring, E., Tillman, M., F r e l i c k , L., R u s s e l l , L., & Weisz, G. (1980) . Concepts of intimacy i n the general p o p u l a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Nervous and Mental Disease. 168. 471-474. Waterman, J . (1979). Family patterns of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . In G. Chelune and Associates (Eds.), S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e (pp. 2 2 5 - 2 4 2 ) . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass.  146  Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J . , & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of human cornmunication. New York: W.W. Norton. Weishaus, L., & F i e l d , D. (1988). A h a l f century of marriage: C o n t i n u i t y or change? Journal of Marriage and the Family. 50. 763-774. Weiss, R.L., & Heyman, R.E. (1990). Observation of m a r i t a l i n t e r a c t i o n . In F.D. Fincham & T.N. Bradbury (Eds.), The psychology of marriage: Basic issues and a p p l i c a t i o n s . New York: Guilford. West, J.D., & Z a r s k i , J . J . (1986). The i n f l u e n c e of the f a m i l y t r i a n g l e on intimacy. American Mental Health Counselors A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l . 8. 166-174. Whiffen, V.E., & G o t l i b , I.H. (1989). S t r e s s and coping i n m a r i t a l l y d i s t r e s s e d and nondistressed couples. J o u r n a l of S o c i a l and Personal R e l a t i o n s h i p s . 6. 327-344. White, J.M. (1984). Not the sum of i t s p a r t s . J o u r n a l of Family Issues. 5. 515-518. White, L.K.' (1983). Determinants of spousal i n t e r a c t i o n : M a r i t a l s t r u c t u r e or m a r i t a l happiness. J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family. 45. 511-519. White, M.B., Stahmann, R.F., & Furrow, J . L . (1994). Shorter may be b e t t e r : A comparison of the Kansas M a r i t a l S a t i s f a c t i o n Scale and the Locke-Wallace M a r i t a l Adjustment Test. Family Perspective. 28. 53-66. Wilkinson, C. (1989). Family f i r s t . Emphasis. 24.  1-2.  Wincze, J.P., & Carey, M.P. (1991). Sexual d y s f u n c t i o n s : A guide f o r assessment and treatment. New York: G u i l f o r d Press. Wolf, R.M. (1992). Personal assessment of intimacy i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s . In J . J . Kramer, & J.C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. L i n c o l n , Nebraska: The Buros I n s t i t u t e of Mental Measurements. Woody, E.Z., & Costanzo, P.R. (1990). Does m a r i t a l agony precede m a r i t a l ecstasy? A comment on Gottman and K r o k o f f ' s " M a r i t a l and s a t i s f a c t i o n : A l o n g i t u d i n a l view". J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 58. 499-501. Wortman, C.B. (1983). Coping with v i c t i m i z a t i o n : Conclusions and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r future research. J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues. 39. 195-221.  147 W y n n e , L . & W y n n e , A . R . (1986) . T h e q u e s t f o r i n t i m a c y . J o u r n a l o f M a r i t a l and F a m i l y T h e r a p y . 12. 3 8 3 - 3 9 4 . Zimbardo, Harper C o l l i n s  P . G . , & Weber, A . L . (1994). College Publishers.  Psychology.  New Y o r k :  149  Appendix  B  Demographics Questionnaire  DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE Department of Counselling Psychology Faculty of Education 5780 Toronto Road Vancouver, B . C . Canada V 6 T 1L2 Tel: (604) 822-5259 Fax: (604) 822-2328  For statistical purposes and an overall general description of the group of people who will participate in this study, please provide the following information. This information will demonstrate the extent to which our results could be representative of the general population of married couples. Your accurate completion of this questionnaire is very much appreciated.  AGE:__ SEX: NUMBER OF YEARS MARRIED :  NUMBER OF CHILDREN :  .  (Include the months)  WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE YOU PRIMARY ETHNIC HERITAGE / CULTURE ? (eg. Caucasian, African American, Asian, Latin American, European, etc.)  NUMBER OF YEARS LIVING TOGETHER (PRIOR TO MARRIAGE): YEARS OF EDUCATION COMPLETED TO DATE : HIGHEST DEGREE/DIPLOMA OBTAINED TO DATE: ARE YOU CURRENTLY EMPLOYED ?  YES  NO  WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION ? WHAT IS / WAS YOUR FATHER'S PRIMARY OCCUPATION ? WHAT IS / WAS YOUR MOTHER'S PRIMARY OCCUPATION ? WHAT IS YOUR ANNUAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME: (please check off a line below) less than $10,000 $10, 000-$30,000 $30,000 - $50,000 $50,000 - $70,000 more than $70,000  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 26 0
China 7 1
France 7 0
Philippines 4 0
Japan 3 0
Canada 3 4
Portugal 2 0
Russia 2 0
Sweden 2 0
Indonesia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 12 15
Washington 10 0
Ashburn 10 0
Shenzhen 7 1
Tokyo 3 0
Stockholm 2 0
Alcochete 2 0
Pampanga 2 0
Eau Claire 1 0
Muncie 1 0
Fort Worth 1 0
Saint Petersburg 1 0
Senatobia 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054052/manifest

Comment

Related Items